,  ^      ,    '■       .-A 


V_- 


iS  0/  ^ 


Vv^    ;•. 


Ui 


'W'^ 


^'ff^^^ 


^\ 


^M 


V  v 


i^r: 


^Ui! 


I 


/^■^''  «^  Pr, 


Vol  ,  2.1. 


i 


7 


LETTERS   ON   THE    ELDER    QUESTION. 


/ 

BY  JOHN  MACLEAN. 


PRINTED    BY     JOHN     T.    ROBINSON. 
1844 


The  letters  on  the  Quorum  Question  were  published  originally  in  the  Presby- 
terian, and  they  bear  the  dates  of  the  Nos.  of  that  paper  in  which  they  appeared. 


LETTERS    ON   THE  ELDER    UUESTION. 


No.  I. 

January    20. 

jyiij  Dear  Sir. — With  your  permission  it 
is  my  design  to  present  to  the  readers  of  your 
paper  some  strictures  upon  the  protests,  com- 
plaints, and  appeals  of  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge 
and  others,  and  also  upon  the  two  speeches  of 
Dr.  B.  recently  published  in  the  Presbyterian. 

Had  (he  Synod  of  Philadelphia  re-affirmed 
the  decisions  of  the  last  General  Assembly  res- 
pecting "a  quorum  of  Presbytery"  and  "the  im- 
position of  hands  in  ordination"  the  Rev.  Dr. 
and  his  friends  might  have  had  some  pretext  for 
protesting  againgt  the  decisions  of  the  Synod; 
but  when  the  Synod  did  nothing  more  than 
simply  refuse  to  unite  with  Dr.  B.  in  condemn- 
ing the  decisions  of  the  last  Assembly,  to  make 
this  refusal  a  ground  for  protest,  complaint, 
and  appeal  is  certainly  something  new  under 
the  sun.  What  are  the  simple  facts  in  the 
case  1  Dr.  Breckinridge  presented  to  the  Syn- 
od two  papers  condemnatory  of  two  acts  of  the 
last  Assembly.  Without  affirming  or  denying 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  several  positions 
assumed  by  Dr.  B.  in  his  argumentative  leso- 
lutions,  the  Synod  simply  decided  not  to  adopt 
them.  Whereupon  the  Rev.  Dr.  immediately 
writes  two  protests  against  the  decisions  of  the 
Synod,  and  the  first  reason  assigned  in  one  of 
them  for  protesting  is  that  the  decision  is  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God;  and  the  second  rea- 
son is  that  the  decision  is  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church.  Now  I  am  well 
aware  of  the  Dr.'s  ingenuity,  but  I  very  much 
question  whether  lie  will  be  able  to  establish  it, 
that  the  refusal  of  the  Synod  to  adopt  a  reso- 
lution submitted  by  himself  or  by  any  body 


else  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.  And  should  the 
next  Assembly  sustain  his  complaint  or  appeal, 
it  will  be  an  affirmation  on  the  part  of  that 
body  that  the  Synod  had  no  right  to  waive  aa 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  sulject  submitted 
by  Dr.  B.  or  indeed  upon  any  subject,  which 
Dr.  B.  may  be  pleased  to  bring  before  the  Syn- 
od. This  once  established,  it  follows  that 
every  ecclesiastical  body  in  our  connexion  is 
bound  to  express  an  opinion  directly  on  every 
matter  that  any  one  belonging  to  the  body  may 
choose  to  bring  before  it. 

But  let  me  next  inquire,  in   virtue  of  what 
„rovision  in  our  Constitution  does  Dr.  Bieck- 
inridge  make  the  refusal  of  the  Synod  to  adopt 
his  views  a  ground   for  judicial   proceedings  ? 
In    making   this   inquiry   I  do   not  take   the 
ground,  which  if  I  am  not  deceived  Dr.  B.  him- 
self has  taken,  viz.  that  no  complaint  or  appeal 
can  lie  except  in  cases  judicially  decided.       If 
any    individuals  be  personally   aggrieved   by 
any  decision  of  Session,  Presbytery,  or  Syn- 
od, such  individuals  have  a  right  to   seek  re- 
dress by  complaint  or  appeal,  and   others  may 
complain  of  the  wrong  done.     But  of  what 
right  or  privilege  has  the  refusal  of  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia  to  adopt  Dr.  B.'s  propositions 
deprived  any  one  ?     Whether  the  Constitution 
of  the  church  makes  or  does  not  make  the  pre- 
sence of  a  ruling  elder  essential  to  a  quorum  of 
Presbytery  ;  or  whether  it  authorizes    or  docs 
not  authorize  Ruling  Elders  to  impose  hands 
in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  is  the  refusal  of 
the  Synod  to  express  an  opinion  in  conflict 
with  the  constitution  1     If  before  the  refusal  of 
the  Synod  to  sanction  Dr.  B.'s   propositions. 


there  could  be  no  quorum  of  Preslijtery  with 
out  an  elder  being  present,  and  if  a  ruling  el- 
der could  impose  hands  ;  this  state  of  things  is 
not  altered  by  the  decision  of  the  Synod. — 
Where  then  is  the  ground  of  complaint  or  of 
appeal  ] 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  would  be  per- 
fectly preposterous  for  the  next  Assembly  to 
listen  to  the  complaint  or  appeal.  That  Dr. 
B.  felt  the  awkwardness  «f  his  position,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  he  was  evidently  at  a 
loss  whether  to  enter  a  complaint  or  an  appeal, 
leaving  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  next  Assem- 
bly to  say,  whether  he  should  be  permitted  to 
complain  or  appeal.  He  has  no  right  to  do  the 
one  or  the  other.  It  would  be  a  flagrant  abuse 
of  the  privilege  of  submitting  overtures  to  Pres- 
byteries and  Synods,  to  make  the  rejection  of 
them  a  subject  of  judicial  proceeding. 

In  my  next  communication,  I  shall  enter  up- 
on a  review  of  Dr.  B.'s  statements  and  reason- 
ings in  his  speech  on  the  Quorum  Question  ; 
but  as  so  much  has  already  appeared  on  this 
subject,  I  shall  confine  myself  chiefly  to  the 
points  not  handled  by  others.  With  the  most 
sincere  respect  and  esteem,  yours, 

John  Maclean. 


II. 

Jmuiarii  27. 
•l/r.  Editoi — Before  entering  upon  an  ex- 
amination of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  argument  to 
prove  that  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly, 
respecting  a  quorum  of  Presbytery,  is  opposed 
to  the  constitution  of  our  church,  I  beg  leave 
to  make  a  few  prefitory  remarks. 

1.  For  the  right  decision  of  the  matter  in 
dispute,  we  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  ascertain 
the  true  import  of  the  rule,  in  our  "  Form  of 
Government,"  which  s;iys :  "Any  three  minis- 
ters, and  as  many  elders  as  may  be  present 
belonging  to  the  Presbytery,  being  met  at  the 
time  and  place  appointed,  shall  be  a  quorum 
competent  to  proceed  to  business." 

2.  If  this  rule  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
sarrcd    Scriptures,  or  if  it  is  in  conflict  with 


that  article  of  the  constitution  which  defines 
what  a  Presbytery  is,  or  if  it  is  found  to  be  in- 
jurious in  its  operation,  let  it  be  altered.  Yea 
further,  if  the  rule  is  not  acceptable  to  any  con- 
siderable number  of  our  ministers  and  elders, 
although  they  should  be  a  decided  minority, 
let  the  rule  be  changed.  It  is  but  a  mere  mu- 
nicipal rule  which  may  be,  at  any  time,  modi- 
fied so  as  to  suit  the  convenience  or  inclina- 
tion of  ihose  by  whose  consent  it  has  the  force 
of  law, 

3.  The  Assembly  has  expressed  no  opinion,       ji 
in  regard  to  the  expediency  or  propriety  of  the 
rule,  but  has  simply  said  that  in  the  judgment 

of  the  Assembly  it  is  perfectly  consistent  vi'ith 
the  rule  as  it  now  exists,  for  any  three  minis- 
ters of  a  Presbytery  being  met  at  the  time  and 
place  appointed,  to  proceed  to  business.  And 
in  the  answer  to  the  protest  presented  to  the 
Assembly  against  this  decision,  the  Assembly 
observes,  "  If  our  protesting  brethren  think 
that  the  cause  of  truth  and  order  would  be  pro- 
moted by  the  practice  which  they  wish  to  in- 
troduce, let  them  propose  a  change  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Constitution.  It  would  be  an 
easy  matter  to  say,  '  Any  three  ministers,  and 
one,  two,  or  three  Ruling  Elders  belonging  to 
the  Presbytery,  being  convened  at  the  time 
and  place  fixed  for  meeting,  shall  be  a  quorum 
competent  to  proceed  to  business.'  "  Would 
not  the  most  peacefid  course,  and  the  one  most 
likely  to  unite  all  concerned,  have  been,  to 
submit  an  overture  to  the  Presbyteries,  request- 
ing them  cither  to  modify  the  rule,  or  to  give 
it  such  an  authoritative  construction,  as  would 
make  it  accord  with  the  \Hevvs  of  those  who 
now  maintain  that  the  terms  of  the  rule  re- 
quire the  presence  of  one  or  more  elders  in  or- 
der to  make  a  quorum  of  Presbytery  1 

4.  If  in  giving  the  judgment  they  did,  the 
Assembly  erred,  would  it  not  have  been  sufii, 
cient  for  the  coircction  of  the  error,  to  point 
out  clearly  that  there  was  an  error  1  '1  here 
surely  could  be  no  necessity  for  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge to  give  utterance  to  the  perfectly  gratui- 
tous charge  against  the  clergy,  of  being  under 
"  that  unhappy  and  dangerous  prepossession, 
which  Bcems  to  characterize  the  Icelings  nnt' 


opinions  of  our  ministers  upon  every  question 
touching  the  position  and  rights  of  the  ruling 
elders,  and  to  threaten  the  church  with  the 
terrible  calamity  of  the  permanent  subjugation 
of  these  last  named  officers,  and  as  must  inevi- 
tably follow,  the  overthrow  of  the  freedom  of 
the  church."  Need  I  characterize  such  an  as. 
persion  in  t!ic  way  it  deserves?  I  presume 
that  there  is  very  little  reason  to  fear,  I  should 
hope  none,  that  Dr.  Breckinridge  will  succeed 
in  his  a 'tempt  to  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  ci- 
ders against  the  ministers  of  the  church. 

5.  The  decision  of  the  Assembly  prevents 
no  elder  from  bemg  present  at  every  meeting 
of  his  Fresbylcry  ;  it  interferes  with  the  exer' 
cise  of  no  one  of  his  rights,  when  piesent;  and 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  elders  them- 
selves, there  can  never  be  a  quorum  of  Pres- 
bytery without  one  or  more  of  them  being 
present ;  for  there  can  be  no  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery, unless  every  session  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Presbytery  be  apprised  of  the  meeting, 
and  have  an  opportunity  to  commission  one  of 
their  number  to  attend  it;  and  the  last  assem- 
bly gave  it  as  their  judgment,  that  it  was  not 
only  the  right  and  the  privilege  of  the  elders 
when  thus  commissioned,  but  also  their  duty 
to  be  present  at  the  meetings  of  the  Presbyte- 
ry. But  while  the  Assembly  regarded  it  as 
the  duty  of  the  elders  when  conmiissioned  for 
the  purpose  to  attend  the  meetings  of  Presby- 
tery, they  recognized  the  fact  that  the  constitu- 
tion gave  the  Presbytery  no  power  to  compel 
the  elders  to  be  present  at  their  meetings;  and 
although  Dr.  Breckinridge  treats  the  ideas  as 
absurd,  and  worthy  only  of  contempt,  yet  it  is 
nevertheless  a  fact,  as  fully  shown  by  Chan- 
cellor Johns,  in  his  communication  to  the 
"  Presbyterian,"  that  the  constitution  has  given 
to  the  Presbyteriis  no  such  control  over  the 
elders  as  that  for  which  Dr.  B.  contends. 
Whether  it  should  have  given  the  power  or 
not,  I  shall  not  now  undertake  to  discuss. 
But  is  it  not  a  little  strange,  that  Dr.  B.  who 
would  fain  have  himself  regarded  as  the  groat 
asserter  of  the  rights  of  ruling  elders,  should 
be  for  abridging  t'.ie  liberty  of  the  elders,  and 
for  making  that  compulsory,  which  in  regard 


to  them  the  constitution  has  made  voluntary  ? 
It  may  be  well  for  the  reader  to  compare  chap- 
ters X.  3,  5,  and  xii.  2,  of  our  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, and  observe  the  difference  in  the  form  of 
expression,  when  mention  is  made  of  churches 
being  represented  in  presbyteries,  and  of  the 
Presbyteries  themselves  in  the  General  Assern- 
bly. 

Lest  I  trespass  against  the  rules  laid  down 
with  respect  to  articles  on  this  subject,  I  shall 
defer  my  examination  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  ar- 
gument until  next  week.  With  the  most  sin- 
cere respect,  yours. 


III. 


Febrxiary  3. 
J^Ii\  Editor — To  show  that  the  decision  of 
the  Assembly,  respecting  a  quorum  of  Pres- 
bytery, is  contrai-y  to  the  constitution  of  our 
Church,  Dr.  Breckinridge  observes,  "  If  ruling 
elders  are  essential  to  the  composition  of  a  Pres- 
bytery, and  a  quorum  of  Presbytery  is  actually 
and  potentially  a  Presbytery,  then  by  the  terms 
of  the  proposition,  ruling  elders  are  essential  to 
the  formatiom  of  a  quorum."  To  prove  that 
ruling  elders  are  essential  to  the  composition  of 
a  presbytery,  he  cites  "  Form  of  Government," 
X.  2.  "  A  Presbytery  consists  of  all  the  minis- 
ters and  ruling  elders  from  each  congregation 
within  a  certain  district."  The  attentive  read- 
er cannot  fail  to  perceive,  that  this  argument 
no  more  proves  that  both  ministers  and  elders 
are  necessary  to  a  quorum,  than  it  does  that 
all  the  ministers  and  an  elder  from  each  con- 
gregation are  necessary  to  a  quorum.  If  it 
proves  the  latter,  the  other  is  a  fair  inference  • 
otherwise  it  is  any  thing  else  than  a  just  in- 
ference. Of  all  the  men  in  our  (Church,  Dr. 
Breckinridge,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  last  who 
should  insist,  that  the  presence  of  both  minis- 
ters and  ruling  elders  is  essential  to  a  quorum 
of  Presbytery.  Does  he  not  hold,  that  when 
they  are  ordained,  it  is  not  as  ministers  and  as 
ruling  elders,  composing  two  distinct  orders, 
but  as  presbyters  of  one  and  the  very  same  or- 
der, and  on  precisely  the  same  footing ;  so 


much  so,  that  if  a  ruling  elder  should  become 
a  preacher,  he  requires  no  other  ordination 
than  that  which  he  receircd,  when  he  was  set 
apart  to  the  oflice  of  ruling  elder  ?  Does  he 
not  also  hold  to  the  position,  that  the  ministers 
as  well  as  the  ruling  elders  are  rightfully  mem- 
bers of  Piesbytery  only  in  virtue  of  their  being 
delegates  from  individual  churches  1  If  so 
what  reason  can  there  be  for  his  asserting  that 
both  ministers  and  ruling  ciders  are  essential 
to  a  quorum  ?  They  arc  according  to  Dr. 
Breckinridge  equally  presbyters,  equally  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  and  as  members  of 
Presbytery  there  is  no  distinction  whatever  be- 
tween them.  Why  then  needlessly  make  a 
distinction  ?  "Would  it  not  accord  better  with 
Dr.  Breckinridge's  views  of  Presbyterian 
church  government,  to  maintain  that  the  pro- 
vision in  our  "  Form  of  Government"  requir- 
ing a  given  number  of  ministers  to  make  a 
quorum  is  in  violation  of  the  rights  of  elders, 
and  that  as  the  elders  are  competent  to  all  the 
duties  of  presbyters,  they  can  be,  and  ought  to 
be  of  themselves  a  quorum,  in  case  the  minis- 
ters are  all  absent?  But  I  waive  further  re- 
marks on  this  point,  and  without  the  least  hes- 
itation, I  concede  to  Dr.  Breckinridge  that  "  a 
quorum  of  a  Presbytery  is  actually  and  poten- 
tially a  Presbytery,"  and  that  a  quorum  of  any 


no  specific  provision  to  regulate  this  matter, 
then  according  to  the  law,  as  Dr.  Rieckinridge 
styles  it,  "  of  common  sense,  and  of  com- 
mon practice  of  deliberative  bodies,"  a  majori- 
ty of  the  whole  number  would  be  the  quorum. 
And  if  the  ruling  elders  commissioned  to  at- 
tend any  given  meeting  of  Presbytery  were  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  of  presbyters, 
then  in  the  absence  of  all  specific  provision  on 
the  subject,  according  to  the  above  named  law 
"  of  common  sense  and  of  the  common  prac- 
tice," they,  if  met  at  the  time  and  place  ap- 
pointed, would  be  a  quorum,  even  in  the  ab- 
sence of  all  ministers,  unless  certain  duties 
were  by  the  constitution  assigned  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, which  implied,  and  which  for  their  pro- 
per discharge  required,  the  presence  of  one  or 
more  ministers ;  for  in  the  definition  of  the 
term  Presbytery  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
their  being,  for  the  occasion,  the  Presbytery, 
though  there  be  not  a  minister  present.  So 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  the  defi- 
nition of  a  Presbytery  which  could  prevent  the 
ministers,  if  they  were  a  majority  of  all  the 
presbyters,  from  being  for  the  occasion  the 
Presbytery,  even  in  case  all  the  ruling,  elders 
were  absent.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the 
definition  of  the  term  "  Presbytery"  which 
makes  it   necessary  to   include  both  ministers 


Presbytery,  say  that  of  Balliinorc,  is  that  Pres-   and  ciders,  in  any  specific  provision  regulating 


bytery.  But  does  this  mean,  that  in  all  cases 
a  quorum  is  composed  of  "  all  the  ministers 
and  a  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation 
within  a  certain  district  1"  No  one  will  main- 
tain this,  and  if  so,  then  as  a  quorum  of  a 
Presbytery  is  a  Presbytery,  there  can  be  a 
Presbytery  without  all  the  presbyters  being 
present.  And  if  there  can  be  a  Presbytery 
without  all  the  presbyters  being  present,  from 
what  does  it  appear,  (hat  all  the  ministers  may 
not  be  absent,  and  that  yet  there  may  be  a 
Presbytery  ?  Surely  not  from  the  definition, 
which  only  designates  the  persons  of  whom 
the  Pre-bytery  is  composed.  As  to  the  point, 
who  and  how  many  of  the  individuals  thus 
designated  must  be  present  in  order  that  busi- 
ness may  be  transacted,  it  determines  absolute- 
ly nothing.     Were  there  in  the  constitution 


how  many  and  what  presbyters  shall  be  a 
quorum  ;  and  if  all  the  duties  assigned  to  the 
Presbytery  could  be  discharged  by  the  presby- 
ters indiscriminatelj',  it  might  be  sufficient  to 
fix  merely  the  number  requisite  for  a  quorum. 
What  is  the  import  of  the  rule  we  now  have 
on  this  subject,  I  shall  discuss  in  a  subsequent 
number. 

"The  House  of  Lords"  in  Britain  consists 
of  "  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal,"  and 
yet  wc  have  the  authority  of  the  learned  anno- 
tator  on  the  Commentaries  of  Elackstone,  for 
saying,  "  That  unless  precedents  could  be 
found  to  the  contrary,  there  seems  to  be  no 
reason  to  doubt,  that  any  act  at  this  day  would 
be  valid,  though  all  the  temporal  lords  or  all 
the  spiritual  lords'  were  absent."  From  the 
4th  Book  of  Blackstone,  chapter  19,  we  learn. 


that  when  the  House  of  Lords  sit  as  a  court 
for   the  trial  of  capital   oficnces,   the  spiritual 
lords   always   withdraw.      "  There   is,"    says 
Blackstone,  "  no   instance  of  their  sitting  on 
trials  for  capital   offences,"  and   although  in 
%ese  cases  they  usually  withdraw  under  pro- 
test, and  asserting  their  right,  to  sit  as  members 
of  the  court,  yet  we  never  hear  of  their  assert- 
ing, or   any  body  for  them,   that  there  can  be 
no  quorum  or  no  court  in  their  absence.     And 
it  is,  I  believe,  a  well  known  fact,  that  during 
the  transaction  of  the  ordinary  business  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  it  is  very  often  the  case  that 
there  is  no  bishop   present.     Here   then   we 
have  a  case  in   which  a  house  is  composed  of  ] 
two  distinct  classes  of  persons,  and  yet  in  the  j 
absence  of  one  class  any  business  whatever 
may  be  transacted,  to  which  the  whole  body  is  ^ 
competent.     Here  then  too  we  have  a  perfect  | 
illustration   of  the  position  we  maintain,   that 
although  a  Presbytery  consists  of  two  distinct  | 
classes  of  persons,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  , 
no  business  can  be  done,  unless  some  of  both 
classes  be   present.      This   depends   entirely  j 
upon  the  fact  whether   or  not  there  is   in  the  I 
Constilution,  any  specific  provision  requiring  I 
some   of  both  classes  to  be  present.     Or  in  j 
other  words  it  brings  us  to  the  simple  question  [ 
what  is  the  true   import  of  that  section,  which 
says,  "  Any  three  ministers,  and  as  many  el- 
ders as  may  be  present  belonging  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, shall  be  a  quorum  competent  to  proceed 
to  business." 

As  introductory  to  the  argument  on  which  I  j 
have    been    commenting.    Dr.    Breckinridge  i 
quotes  from  our  Form  of  Government,  VIIL  1 .  | 
to  prove,  what  no  Presbyterian  has  ever  denied,  ; 
and  which   I  beUeve  as  fully  as    Dr.  Brcckin-  i 
ridge  himself,    that  the  church  is  to  "  be  go- 
verned by  Congregational,   Presbyterial,  and 
Synodical   Assemblies,"  and   that  church  go- 
vernment is  not  in  the  hands  "  of  church  offi- 
cers individually  considered."     For  the  same 
purpose  he  cites   the  language  of  the    West- 
minster  Assembly,   of  the   Second   Book  of 
Discipline,     of    the    Scottish    Assembly    of 
1647,   of  Henderson   and  the  other   Scottish 
Commissioners  to  London,    whose  language 


accords  fully  with  the  words  of  our  Constitu- 
tion, and  which  declares,  to  quote  the  words 
which  Dr.  Breckinridge  seems  to  regard  as 
strong  as  any  other,  if  not  the  strongest,  cited 
by  him,  viz:  those  of  the  Assembly  of  1647, 
"  That  Ecclesiastical  government  is  committed 
and  entrusted  by  Christ  to  the  Assemblies  a' 
the  Kirk,  made  up  of  ministers  of  the  word  and 
Ruhng  Elders."  And  after  all  what  more  is 
here  meatit  than  simply  this,  that  all  assemblies 
having  any  thing  to  do  with  the  government 
of  the  Church  consist  both  of  ministers  and 
Ruling  Elders.  Nothing  is  determined  as  to 
the  point  whether  all  the  ministers  or  all  the 
Ruling  Elders  may  be  absent,  and  yet  busi- 
ness be  transacted.  The  language  may  indeed 
imply,  that  there  can  be  no  lawful  assembly,  if 
either  class  be  excluded  from  the  meeting,  but 
it  by  no  means  implies  that  the  voluntary  ab- 
sence of  one  class  shall  disqualify  the  other 
from  attending  to  the  ordinary  business  of  the 
body,  and  more  especially  if  the  persons  pres- 
ent be  a  majority  of  the  whole  body.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Scottish  church  is,  that  "  an 
Assembly  is  null,  where  no  elders  are  commis- 
sioned," not  if  none  be  present.  See  Steuart 
of  Pardovan,  I.  15,  4.  The  voluntary  absence 
of  the  Elders  does  not  vitiate  an  Assembly.  Dr. 
Breckinridge  tells  us,  that  "  the  Assembly  of 
1638,  the  most  memorable  except  that  of  1843, 
annulled  as  utterly  illegal,  no  less  than  six  pre- 
ceding and  as  they  called  them,  pretended  as- 
semblies, to  wit,  those  of  1606,  1608,1610, 
1 6  ]  6, 1 6 1 7,  and  1 6 1 8,"  and  he  adds,  "Amongst 
the  reasons  assigned  for  this  immense  stretch 
of  authority,  in  five  cases  out  of  six,  one  rea- 
son is,  that  there  were  no  Ruling  Elders  pres- 
ent in  these  Assemblies,  in  some  none  being 
lawfully  commissioned,  in  others  none  lawfully 
sent."  From  his  own  statement,  it  is  evident 
that  it  was  not  the  absence  of  the  Elders,  that 
vitiated  the  Assemblies,  but  the  fact  that  those 
present  were  not  lawfully  commissioned,  or 
lawfully  sent  as  delegates  to  these  Assemblies ; 
and  yet  Dr.  Breckinridge  would  have  us  regard 
these  entirely  distinct  propositions  as  one  and 
the  same,  just  as  in  the  case  previously  consi- 
dered, he  views  it  as  the  same  thing  to  prove 


8 


that  a  Presbytery  consists  of  both  ministers' 
and  elders,  and  to  prove  that  there  can  be  no 
meeting  of  Presbytery,  unless  there  be  both 
ministers  and  elders  present.  i 

In  both  cases  he  proves  one  thing,  and  con- 
siders this  as  proving  another  and  an  altogether 
distinct  thing.  If  the  House  of  Lords  should 
resolve,  that  on  a  given  day  the  bishops  should 
not  attend,  this  would  be  an  unconstitutional 
act,  and  the  house  could  not  be  legally  consti- 
tuted ;  but  if  having  full  liberty  to  be  present 
the  bishops  choose  to  be  absent,  this  could  oc- 
casion no  impediment  to  the  transaction  of  or- 
dinary business.  Who  can  fail  to  see  that  be- 
tween the  constrained  and  the  voluntary  ab. 
sence  of  members  there  is  the  widest  possible 
distinction  ?  In  the  one  case  the  absence 
would  render  the  acts  of  those  present  null ' 
in  the  other  the  acts  would  be  valid.  If  in 
the  Assemblies  condemned  by  that  of  1638, 
there  had  been  no  ciders  present,  it  would  have 
made  an  essential  difference,  whether  their 
absence  was  owing  to  their  own  free  choice, 
or  to  the  fact  that  the  Presbyteries  were  for- 
bidden, or  not  permitted,  to  commission  elders 
to  attend  said  Assemblies.  Yet  this  obvious 
distinction  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  entirely  over- 
looked. But  in  these  Assemblies  there  were 
elders  present,  not  indeed  freely  chosen  and 
commissioned  by  the  Presbyteries,  but  selected 
by  the  king,  who  would  not  permit  the  Pres- 
byteries to  send  such  commissioners  as  they 
thought  best,  and  who,  in  the  case  of  the  el- 
ders, summoned  them  to  attend,  and  without 
even  requiring  the  Presbytciics  to  give  them 
commissions,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  the  min- 
isters. 

In  Calderwood's  History  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  a  history  "  written  at  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  General  Assembly,  and  by  the 
Assembly,  revised  and  examined  and  ap- 
proved for  the  press,"  and  the  author  of  which 
was  the  associate  and  friend  of  both  the  Mel- 
villes,  and  of  Henderson,  we  have  an  account 
of  these  condemned  Assemblies,  and  we  find 
one  of  the  objections  to  have  been,  not  that 
there  were  no  ciders  present,  but  that  those 
present,  or   a  large  proportion   of  them,  had 


been  irregularly  appointed.  In  his  account 
of  the  Asscnibly  of  160G,  Calderwood  gives 
the  names  of  not  less  than  twenty-seven  lay- 
men who  were  members  of  this  Assembly. — 
At  the  Assembly  of  1608,  he  tells  us,  "  There 
were  present  above  forty  noblemen  and  gentle- 
men directed  by  the  king  to  be  present."  And 
again  he  speaks  of  "  the  Earls,  Lords,  Ba- 
rons, and  Gentlemen,  sent  for  by  the  king, 
'ivautiu^  commissio7i,"  as  voting  for  Mr.  Jamea 
Iiaw,  the  candidate  "  of  the  corrupt  side,"  to 
be  moderator  of  the  Assembly.  The  phrases 
"  wanting  commission,"  and  "  sent  for  by  the 
king,"  clearly  point  out  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
jection to  their  being  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly, and  to  the  Assembly  itself,  the  elders  in 
which  had  not  been  regularly  and  lawfully 
commissioned  by  their  respective  Presbyteries. 
Of  the  Assembly  of  1610,  he  says,  "Noble- 
men, Barons,  Bishops,  and  others,  iv/io  had  no 
commission  from  Presbytery  or  Synod,  were 
present  to  make  all  sure  by  plurality  of  votes, 
if  there  had  been  need."  He  had  previously 
remarked,  "  Whereas  the  General  Assembly 
ought  to  consist  not  only  of  ministers  but  also 
of  Barons  and  commissioners  from  burghs, 
freely  chosen,  &c. ;"  and  again,  "  This  As- 
sembly was  intimate  only  by  missives  to  such 
Ministers  and  Barons,  as  it  pleased  the  king 
with  the  advice  of  the  bishops,  to  call  to  that 
meeting."  Of  the  Assembly  of  1616,  Calder- 
wood observes,  "  A  number  of  Lords  and  Ba- 
rons sat  there,  Imthaduot  lawful  commissioji." 
Of  the  Assembly  of  1617,  nothing  is  said  re- 
specting the  persons  present,  though  it  is  men- 
tioned, that  at  the  Diocesan  Synods,  there 
were  commissioners  chosen  for  the  General 
Assembly  before  it  was  indicted,  and  that 
"  there  loas  no  freedom  in  the  election."  As 
members  of  the  Assembly  of  1618,  we  have 
given  the  names  of  sundry  Lords,  Barons,  and 
Burgesses ;  and  it  appears  that  some  of  these 
at  the  least,  had  not  been  "  chosen  with  con- 
sent of  the  Presbyteries." 

From  this  statement  taken  from  Calderwood, 
the  reader  can  see  that  it  was  not  the  volunta- 
ry absence  of  ruling  elders  that  vitiated  the 
Assemblies  of  1G07,  1608,   1610,  1616,  1617 


and  1618,  but  the  want  of  a  regular  commis- 1  "declares  that  neither  the  constitution  of  the 
sion  from  the  Presbyteries.  The  condemna-  Church  nor  the  law  of  the  land,  in  Scotland, 
tion  therefore  of  these  Assembhes,  by  that  of  j  '  do  authorize  any  other  ecclesiastical  judicato- 
1638,  has  nothing  to  do  with  determining  the  i  ries  but  Assemblies,  Synods,  Presbyteries,  and 
question  whether  in   the    Church  of  Scotland,    Kirk  Sessions,  or  their  committees,  consisting 


the  voluntary  absence  of  ruling  elders  from  the 
regular  meetings  of  Presbytery,  Synod,  or 
General  Assembly,  is  a  bar  to  the  transaction 
of  business  by  the  ministers.     To  answer  Dr. 


of  ministers  and  ruling  elders  ;'  that '  no  eccle- 
siastical judicatory  or  committee  thereof  can  be 
lawful  without  consisting  of  both  ministers 
and  elders,'  and  he  expresses  a  doubt  whether 


Breckinridge's  purpose,  he  must  produce  a  the  State  would  recognize  or  correspond  with 
case,  in  which  the  Church  of  Scotland  has  i  any  bodies  not  thus  composed."  This  state- 
condemned    the  proceedings  of  a  Presbytery,  j  ment  Dr.  Breckinridge  regards  as  establishing 


Synod,  or  General  Assembly,  on  the  ground  of 
the  voluntary  absence  of  ruling  elders.  This  I 
am  confident  he  cannot  do. 

In  my  next  communication   I  shall  have 


his  position  ;  but  the  fact  that  an  Assembly,  a 
Synod,  a  Presbytery,  or  a  committee  of  any- 
one of  these  must  always  consist  of  ministers 
and  elders  is  no  evidence  that  there  cannot  be  a 


lidence. 


something  further  to  say  on  the  law  and  prac- 1  quorum  of  any  of  them,  if  either  the  ministers 
ticeofthe  Church  of  Scotland,  to  which  Dr.  :  or  the  elders  be  absent.  The  only  point  in 
Breckinridge  has  appealed  with  so  much  con-  ,  vvhich  this  statement  differs  from  those  quoted 

j  by  Dr.  Breckinridge  from  the  "  Form  of  Go- 
I  vernment"  agreed  upon  by  the  Westminister 
i  Assembly,  from  the  "  Second  Book  of  Disci- 
pline," from  the  Acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1647, 
&c.,  considered  in  my  third  number,  is  simply 
this,  that  committees  are  mentioned  by  Steuart 
as    also   consisting   of  ministers   and   elders. 


IV. 


February  10. 
JMr.  Editor — In  my  last  number  I  pointed 


out  two  mstances  in  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  Granting  what  I  do  not  however  believe  to  be 
had  taken  the  proof  of  one  thing  for  the  proof,  the  fact,  that  Steuart  designed  these  remarks 
of  another.     In   the  present  number  I  shall  j  respecting   committees  to  apply  to  other  com- 


give  one   or  two  more  examples  of  the  same 
kind. 

"  According  to  the  settled  law  of  the  Scot- 
tish church,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  every 
church  court,  in  which  ruling  elders  do  7iot  sit 
is  illegal,  and  all  its  acts  are  null."  In  sup- 
port of  this  proposition  laid  down  without  any 
qualification,  and  as  I  hope  to  show,  without 
any  authority,  he  adduced  the  case  of  the  con- 
demned assemblies  of  1606,  1608, 1610,  1616, 
1617,  and  1618.  That  the  condemnation  of 
these  assemblies  affords  no  support  to  his  asser- 
tion respecting  the  law  and  the  practice  of  the 
Scottish  Church,  I  showed  from  his  own  state. 
ment  of  the  case,  and  from  the  facts  mentioned 
by  Calderwood  in  regard  to  these  assemblies 


mittees  than  those  known  also  by  the  name  cf 
commissions,  yet  they  come  very  far  short  of 
proving  what  it  is  Dr.  Breckinridge's  aim  to 
prove,  viz.  that  "  according  to  the  settled  poli- 
cy of  the  Scottish  Church,  every  church  court 
is  illegal  in  which  ruling  ciders  do  not  sit." 
All  that  Steuart  says,  and  all  that  can  be  made 
out  of  his  language,  even  upon  the  admission 
that  all  committees  whatever  are  included  in 
his  remarks,  is  no  mJre  than  this,  that  every 
Presbytery,  Syno(?,  and  General  Assembly, 
and  every  comrpittee  of  these  bodies  is  com- 
posed of  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  and  that 
their  acts  are  illegal,  if  either  ministers  or  el- 
ders be  excluded  from  them,  and  not  as  Dr. 
Breckinridge  would  have  us  believe,  if  either 
I  shall  now  examine  his  other  statements  on  ministers  or  elders  of  their  own  accord  absent 
this  subject,  and  in  as  few  words  as  possible,  themselves.  That  I  am  correct  in  this  state-. 
"  Steuart  of  Pardovan,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  I  ment  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  when  Steu- 

2 


10 


art  says,  "  But  the  ccmmission  consisting  of 
both  ministers  and  elders,  without  which  no 
ecclesiastical  judicatory  or  committee  can  be 
lawful,"  he  refers  for  proof,  and  it  is  his  only 
authority,  to  the  fourth  section  of  the  same 
chapter.  "  An  Assembly  is  null  where  no 
ruling  elders  are  commissioned."  Had  Dr- 
Breckinridge  taken  the  pains  to  refer  to  (his 
section,  he  wou'd  perhaps  not  have  fallen  into 
the  mistake  he  has,  and  confounded  the  phrase 
"in  which  Ruling  elders  do  not  sit,"  which  is 
his  own,  with  the  phrase,  "  where  no  Ruling 
Elders  are  commissioned,"  which  is  Stcuart's* 
In  Book  I.  15.  1,  speaking  of  Presbytery 
Steuart  says,  "  This  judicature  consists  of  all 
*he  pastors  within  the  bounds,  and  one  ruling 
elder  from  each  parish  therein,  who  receives  a 
commission  from  the  eldership  to  be  a  member 
of  the  Presbytery,  and  to  represent  them  there 
until  the  next  Synod  be  over.  Thus  twice  a 
year  there  are  new  elections  of  ruling  elders.'' 
As  the  Scottish  Synods  met  twice  in  a  year, 
the  Elders  were  chosen  for  six  months,  and  for 
this  space  of  tin^e  they  were  members  of  Pres- 
bytery whetlier  present  or  absent,  for  it  was 
not  their  presence  at  the  meetings,  which  were 
formerly  required  to  be  held  every  third  week, 
but  their  commission  to  represent  their  respec- 
tive Kirk  Sessions  that  made  them  members  of 
Presbytery,  What  more  difficulty  therefore 
could  there  have  been  in  naming  them  mem- 
bers of  committees,  than,  as  is  often  done  with 
us,  in  naming  as  members  of  committees  ab- 
sent ministers,  and,  I  may  add,  absent  elders 
too  1  Dr.  Breckinridge,  I  presume,  has  hard- 
ly reached  the  point  of  denying  that  a  peison 
can  be  appointed  a  member  of  a  committee 
unless  he  be  actually  present  at  the  time  such 
appointment  is  made,  if  actual  presence  is 
not  essential  to  an  appointment  as  a  member  of 
a  committee,  there  could  be  r.o  practical  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  transacting  tU  the  ordinary 
business  of  a  Presbytery,  even  upon  the  sup- 
positions, that  there  were  none  of  the  regularly 
commissioned  elders  present,  and  that  no  com- 
mittee whatever  can  conisist  of  ministers  alone. 
Those  absent  might  bo  named  members  of 
committees,  and   whenever  they  happened  to 


be  present  they  could  without  further  instruc- 
lions  act  with  the  other  members.  That  in 
the  earlier  periods  of  the  Scottish  Church  no 
such  doctrine  was  held  as  this,  viz.,  that  there 
could  be  no  committees  of  any  ecclesiastical 
court,  except  such  as  were  composed  of  both 
ministers  and  elders,  is  evident  from  the  very 
first  sentence  of  the  paragraph  from  which  Dr. 
Breckinridge  makes  his  quotations,  and  which 
is  in  these  words ;  "  Some  few  years  ago,  the 
Presbyteries  of  this  church,  co/i/brm  ro  -what 
had  been  practised,  did  delegate  one  of  their 
number,  being  a  minister,  to  repair  to  the  city 
where  the  parliament  did  sit,  and  during  that 
time  attend  and  watch  ne  quid  detrimcnti  ca- 
peret  ecclesia."  That  committees  consisting 
of  ministers  only  were  frequently  appointed 
during  the  times  of  Knox  and  Melville,  evi- 
dence the  most  ample  is  furnished  by  Calder- 
wood  in  his  history.  Both  Knox  and  Mel- 
ville were  members  of  committees  so  composed. 
Messrs.  Knox  and  Craig,  both  ministers  of 
Edinburgh,  were  appointed  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  156.5,  a  committee  "  to  set  down 
the  form  of  exercise  which  was  to  be  used  at 
the  public  fast,  and  to  cause  print  it,  which 
they  did."  Andrew  Melville  was  a  member  of 
a  most  important  committtce  consisting  only 
of  ministers,  and  appointed  by  the  Assembly 
of  1575,  and  of  another  appointed  by  the  As- 
sembly of  1577.  And  in  1578,  the  verv  year 
that  Melville  was  Moderator  of  the  Genera' 
Assembly,  a  committee  of  three  ministers  was 
appointed  to  present  to  the  King  and  to  the 
council  copies  of  the  "  Second  Book  of  Disci- 
pline," and  before  presenting  them  to  compare 
them  with  the  original,  and  to  see  that  they 
were  correct.  By  the  General  Assembly  o^ 
1595,  he  was  appointed  one  of  a  commission 
consisting  of  nine  ministers,  and  of  these  nine 
only,  to  advise  the  King  in  regard  to  the  choice 
of  chaplains,  and  his  nephew  Mr.  James  Mel- 
ville is  the  first  named  in  a  commission  of 
eight  persons,  all  ministers,  to  visit  the  colleges, 
and  to  try  the  discipline,  doctrine,  6ic..  of  the 
teachers ;  and  these  appointments  were  made 
at  a  time  when  Andrew  Melville's  influence 
was  at  its  height.     If  Melville  was  "  as  learned 


11 


as  Calvin,  and  as  bold  as  Knox,"  and  if  the 
•'  Second  Book  of  Discipline"  is  "  the  clearest 
and  noblest  monument  of  church  order,"  it  can 
be  no  very  great  aberration  from  Presbyterian 
order,  at  least  in  Dr.  Breckinridge's  estimation. 
I  take  it  for  granted,  to  conform  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  when  that  book 
was  her  law,  and  Melville  her  most  influential 
minister.  That  Steuart  has  reference  chiefly 
if  not  exclusively,  to  the  committees  which  are 
authorized  to  determine  in  matters  committed 
lO  them,  and  not  merely  to  report  to  the  As" 
semblies  for  their  action,  and  which  commit- 
tees are  otherwise  called  commissions,  is  evi. 
dent,  I  think,  from  the  connexion  in  which  his 
remark  respecting  the  composition  of  ecclesias- 
tical courts  and  their  committees  occurs.  The 
section,  in  which  the  passages  cited  by  Dr. 
Breckinridge  are  found,  treats  of  "  Delegates 
appointed  to  Parliaments."  But  be  this  as  it 
may,  and  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  concede  to 
Dr.  Breckinridge,  that  Steuart  has  reference 
to  all  committees  and  sub-committees  whatev- 
er ;  yet  he  does  not  say,  that  no  Assembly, 
Synod,  Presbytery  or  Committee  cannot  trans- 
act business,  unless  Ruling  Elders  be  present ; 
but  merely  that  these  bodies  must  he  composed 
of  both  ministers  and  elders  ;  which  is  a  very 
diflferent  thing  from  the  other.  Confounding 
the  composition  of  these  bodies  with  the  indi- 
viduals requisite  to  a  quorum,  Dr.  Breckinridge 
argues,  both  against  the  fact  in  the  case,  and 
the  clear  import  of  the  terms,  that  according  to 
the  Scottish  rule,  there  can  be  no  meeting  of  a 
commission  of  a  General  Assembly,  and  no 
meeting  of  a  Presbytery,  unless  Ruling  Elders 
be  present.  Steuart  tells  us,  page  44,  "  That 
the  Directory  for  Government  saith,  •  That  to 
perform  any  classical  act  of  government  or  or- 
dination there  must  be  present,  at  least,  a  ma- 
jor part  of  the  ministers  of  the  whole  classis'  '' 
(i.  e.  Presbytery,)  and  not  one  word  about  the 
presence  of  Ruling  Elders;  and  yet  in  the  very 
face  of  this  statement.  Dr.  Breckinridge  insists 
that  the  meeting  would  be  illegal,  unless  one 
or  more  Ruling  Elders  be  present,  not  because 
Steuart,  or  any  other  authority,  says  so,  but 
because  mistaking  the  import  of  Steuart's  Ian. 
guage,  respecting  tbe  conaposition  of  a  Prefsby- 


tery  he  imagines  that  Steuart  held  this  view 
of  the  matter. 

"  In  the  printed  Acts  of  the  Scotch  Assem- 
blies" says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  I  have  before  me 
repeated  acts  of  successive  Assemblies  from 
16.38  to  1649  appointing  their  standing  'Com- 
mission for  the  public  afluirs  of  the  Kirk.' 
These  acts  name  first  a  large  number  of  minis- 
ters, then  a  large  number  of  Ruling  Elders, 
who  are  directed  to  meet  on  a  day  certain,  at  a 
place  fixed,  and  afterwards  '  as  they  shall  think 
good,'  and  then  '  gives  and  grants  unto  them, 
or  any  ^f teen  of  them,  there  being  txvelve  mi- 
nisters present,  full  power  and  commission, 
&c.'  "  What  is  the  plain  and  only  meaning 
of  this  language  1  Can  it  mean  any  thing 
else  than  this,  that  if  any  fifteen  commission- 
ers, not  less  than  twelve  being  ministers,  meet 
as  directed,  they  have  full  power  and  commis- 
sion ?  If  all  the  fifteen  be  ministers,  the  limi- 
'•ations  in  the  grant  are  complied  with  :  and  so 
jhey  are,  if  twelve  of  them  be  ministers,  and 
three  of  them  be  elders,  which  is  all  that  Bail- 
lie,  another  authority  cited  by  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
Says  or  means,  when  in  his  journals  of  the  As- 
sembly of  1643,  he  states  "  an  ample  commis- 
sion was  drawn  to  a  number  of  the  ablest  in 
the  whole  land,  whereof  twelve  ministers  and 
three  elders  are  a  quorum."  This,  however,  is 
not  at  variance  with  the  obvious  import  of  the 
acts  of  the  Assemblies,  which  fix  the  quorum 
at  fifteen,  and  require  that  of  these  fifteen  at 
least  twelve  shall  be  ministers,  while  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  whole  fifteen  may  be  ministers. 
At  the  present  day,  the  whole  Assembly  is  the 
Commission,  and  the  number  requisite  to  a 
quorum  has  been  enlarged ;  of  this  number 
twenty-one  must  be  and  all  may  be  ministers. 

After  citing  Steuart  of  Pardovan,  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge says,  "  I  have  discovered  a  very  curi- 
ous fact,  strongly  illustrative  of  the  subject 
now  before  us,  in  which  the  commission  of  the 
Scottish  Assembly  of  1643,  in  appointing  a 
special  commission  of  itself  had  its  attention  di- 
rected to  the  very  principles  for  which  I  now 
contend,  and  fully  recognized  them  in  one  of 
the  most  interesting  acts,  and  in  its  issues  one 
of  the  most  important  ever  performed  by  a 
church  court.     It  was  on  the  occasion  of  ap- 


12 


pointing  commissionerg  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly."  Baillie  insisted,  and  finally  suc- 
ceeded in  his  effort,  that  with  the  ministers  ap- 
pointed commissioners,  some  elders  should  be 
associated,  and  of  the  icasonsassianed  by  Bail- 
lie  in  favour  of  this  measure.  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge quotes  the  following:  "The  exclii(li?ig- 
the  ruling  elders  from  a  commission  of  this  na- 
ture, may  call  in  question  the  validity  of  the 
commission,  may  hazard  the  approbation  of  it 
by  the  next  General  Assembly,  may  give  just 
offence  to  all  ruling  elders,  may  make  all  the 
actions  of  these  ministers  more  unpleasant,  and 
of  less  authority  with  the  body  of  the  nation.'' 
"The  result,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "was 
the  recognition  of  the  principle,  that  ruling  el- 
ders must  regularly  be  members  of  all  assem- 
blies whose  constituent  parts  are  preaching  and 
ruling  elders,  and  even  of  all  commissions  and 
sub-commissions  of  them,  whether  general  or 
special,  and  three  ruling  elders,  the  Earl  of 
Cassilis,  Lord  John  Maitland,  and  Johnston 
of  Waristoun  were  united  with  the  ministers 
Henderson,  Douglass,  Riuherford,  Baillie,  and 
Gillespie,  as  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the 
Kirk  of  Scotland  to  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly." If  by  the  ambiguous  language  "that 
ruling  elders  must  regularly  he  members  of  all 
assemblies  whose  constituent  pnrts  svrc  preach- 
ing and  ruling  elders,  and  even  of  commis- 
sions," Dr.  Breckinridge  means  to  say  merely 
that  the  principle  was  recognized,  that  all  as- 
semblies for  the  government  of  the  church,  and 
all  commissions  of  these  assemblies  must  consist 
of  both  ministers  and  elders,  I  object  not  to  his 
statement ;  but  if  he  means  more  than  this> 
and  maintains  that  in  the  appointment  of  el- 
ders on  this  occasion  there  was  a  recognition 
of  the  principle,  that  no  assembly,  or  commis- 
sion, can  transact  the  business  committed  to  it 
unless  both  ministers  and  elders  be  present,  I 
do  object,  and  I  will  at  once  produce  the  evi- 
dence that  his  inference  is  unfounded,  and  that 
too  from  his  own  authority.  In  his  journal  of 
the  Assembly  of  1643 — Baillie  has  the  follow- 
ing passage,  "Friday,  the  ]8th,  a  committee 
of  eight  were  appointed  for  Jiondon,  whereof 
avy  three,  were  a  quorum.  Mr.  Henderson, 
Mr.  Douglas.s,   Rutherford,  Gillespie,  I,  (Bail- 


lie,)  Maitland,  Cassilis,  and  Waristoun." 
From  this  it  is  evident  beyond  all  dispute, 
that  although  the  commission  consisted  of 
both  ministers  and  elders,  the  three  elders 
would  have  been  a  quorum,*  or  any  three  of 
the  five  ministers  ;  and  that  this  latter  case  ac- 
tually occurred,  is  but  beyond  all  dispute,  by 
Baillie's  letter  to  Mr.  David  Dickson,  of 
the  date  of  Oct.  27,  1646,  in  which  letter 
he  urges  Mr.  Dickson  to  unite  with  Lord 
Waristoun  in  obtaining  his  desire,  and 
that  of  Mr.  Rutherford,  to  have  permission 
to  return  home,  and  in  the  course  of  the  letter 
he  thus  writes,  "  and  we  do  think  that  the 
matters  are  likely  to  draw  out  so  extremely 
long,  that  it  will  be  enough  for  one  to  wait  on, 
and  however  Mr.  Gillespie  would  be  as  gladly 
loosed  as  any  of  us,  yet  if  any  stay,  without  all 
question,  all  things  well  considered,  he  is  the 
meetest  of  the  three.  But  the  commission 
possibly  will  leave  to  ourselves  which  of  the 
three  shall  be  left,  only  I  pray  you  to  press  a 
dismissim  for  two."  Now  I  conceive,  we 
have  here  a  confirmation  of  what,  in  opposi- 
tion, to  Dr.  Breckinridge,  I  contend  for,  viz, 
that  although  a  judicatory  or  a  commission 
consist  of  b(tth  ministers  and  elders,  it  is  no* 
necessary  on  that  account,  that  both  ministers 
and  elders  must  be  present  in  order  to  form  a 
quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business.  And  the 
only  matter  for  surprise  is,  that  if  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge was  aware  of  the  facts  just  stated  in  regard 
to  the  quorum  of  the  commission  to  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  he  should  not  have  been  led 
to  see  the  error  which  pervades  his  whole  speech 
and  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  his  false 
reasonings  and  inferences,  viz ,  that  because  an 
assembly  consists  of  two  classes  of  persons, 
there  can  be  no  quorum  unless  some  of  both 
classes  be  present.  'J'hat  this  was  not  the 
case  in  the  Commission  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  I  think  Dr.  Breckinridge  will  hard- 
ly ventuie  to  dispute ;  and  with  as  little  rea- 
son can  he  maintain,  that  under  the  law  of 
the  Scottish  Church,  there  can  be  no  meeting 
of  a  Presbytery,  unless  Ruling  Elders  be  pres- 
ent. We  all  agree  that  under  the  constitution  of 


*  See  letter  of  April  6th. 


13 


the  Scottish  Church,  as  well  as  under  our  own  a 
Presbytery  consists  of  both  ministers  anJ  elJers- 
That  even  Baillie  did  not  consider  it  neces- 
sary for  all  committees  and  sub-committees  to 
be  composed  of  both  ministers  and  elders  is 
evident,  from  the  form  of  expression  used  by 
him  "  commission  of  this  natitre^^  and  also 
from  the  fact,  that  in  his  letter  of  the  date  of 
October  1,  1647,  he  speaks  of  a  declaration 
which  was  committed  to  himself  and  another 
minister,  viz.  Mr.  Gillespie,  and  which  he  says 
was  approved  by  the  Assembly  of  that  year. 
Other  evidence,  full  and  decisive  on  this  point, 
might  be  given  from  his  letters,  but  as  it  is  not 
material  to  the  decision  of  the  matter  in  hand, 
I  shall  omit  it. 


V. 

February  17. 
Mr.  Editor — Having  shown  in  the  prece- 
ding numbers  that  the  law  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  affords  no  countenance  to  the  posi- 
tion assumed  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  viz.  that  no 
assembly  of  the  Church  can  lawfully  transact 
its  regular  business  unless  both  ministers  and 
elders  be  present  at  its  meetings  ;  I  propose 
now  to  give  the  evidence,  that  the  views  of  Dr. 
Breckinridge  are  equally  at  variance  with  the 
express  provisions  of  our  own  constitution. 
But  before  doing  this,  let  me  remind  the  rea- 
der that  between  Dr.  Breckinridge  and  myself 
there  is  no  difference  of  opinion,  as  to  these 
three  points,  1.  That  according  to  our  consti- 
tution every  assembly  of  the  Church,  taken  in 
its  widest  sense  as  comprising  all  who  belong 
to  the  body  and  have  a  right  to  take  part  in  its 
proceedings,  consists  of  both  ministers  and  el- 
ders. 2.  That  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  re- 
gular and  lawful  transaction  of  business,  that 
all  who  are  members  of  a  session,  Presbytery, 
Synod,  or  General  Assembly  should  be  pres- 
ent at  the  meetings  of  these  bodies.  3.  That 
when  a  sufficient  number  for  the  regular  trans- 
action of  business,  commonly  designated  a  quo- 
rum, is  met  at  the  time  and  place  appointed, 
this  number  or  quorum  is  for  the  occasion 
"  actually  and  potentially"  the  body,  notwith- 


standing the  absence  of  some  of  the  members. 
The  point  as  to  which  we  differ  is  this.  Dr, 
Breckinridge  atiirms  that  both  a  minister  and 
a  ruling  elder  must  be  present  at  every  meet- 
ing, or  else  no  business  can  be.  lawfully  done ; 
and  this  he  does  not  maintain  in  reference  to  a 
Presbytery  alone,  and  on  the  ground  of  a  spe- 
cial provision  in  the  constitution,  but  as  per- 
taining to  all  church  courts,  and  as  an  essen- 
tial feature  in  their  structure.  This  I  deny  ; 
whether  for  sufficient  reasons  the  reader  can 
judge.  In  chapter  xii.  2,  are  these  words, 
"  The  General  Assembly  shall  consist  of  an 
equal  delegation  of  bishops  and  elders  from 
each  Presbytery,  &c."  In  section  3,  of  the 
same  chapter-,  are  these  words,  "  Any  fourteen 
or  more  of  these  commissioners,  one  half  of 
whom  shall  be  ministers,  being  met  on  the 
day  and  at  the  place  appointed,  shall  be  a  quo- 
rum for  the  transaction  of  business.  By  any 
torturing  of  language,  can  these  words  be  made 
to  mean,  that  of  the  fourteen  or  more  commis- 
sioners necessary  to  a  quorum  some  must  be 
elders  7  Is  not  the  evident  meaning  of  these 
two  passages,  one  defining  the  composition,  the 
other  the  quorum  of  the  General  Assembly 
this — that  of  the  delegates  chosen  in  equal 
numbers  from  the  ministers  and  elders,  any 
fourteen  or  more  being  met  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed, would  be  a  quorum  for  the  transaction 
of  business,  provided  that  not  less  than  half  of 
those  thus  met  were  ministers  >  If  all  the 
fourteen  or  more  commissioners  were  mi- 
nisters, one  half  would  be,  and  the  only 
limitations  in  this  section  defining  a  quorum 
would  be  complied  with,  and  so  there  would 
be  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business 
without  an  elder  present.  I  am  not  now  giving 
an  opinion  that  it  ought  to  be  so,  but  am 
merely  staling  what  is  the  plain  and  obvious 
meaning  of  the  rule  respecting  a  quorum  of 
the  General  Assembly.  It  depends  upon  the 
elders  themselves,  and  upon  them  alone,  to 
say  whether,  under  the  rule  we  now  have,  the 
case  shall  ever  occur,  that  there  shall  be  a 
meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  without  an 
elder  being  present.  Of  this  I  am  persuaded 
that  the  elders   have  no  need   for  me  to  tell 


14 


them,  that  so  far  from  being  desirous  that  the 
elders  should  absent  themselves  from  the  meet- 
ings of  our  Church  courts,  the  ministers  have 
uniformly  encouraged  their  attendance.  The 
case,  I  trust,  will  never  occur,  that  we  shall 
have  a  General  Assembly  without  the  atten- 
dance of  a  large  number  of  ruling  ciders,  and 
the  nearer  they  approach  to  the  m'nisters,  in 
point  of  numbers,  the  better.  Yet  it  is  obvi- 
ous beyond  dispute  that  those  who  framed  and 
ratified  the  Constitution,  designed,  that  in  this 
highest  court  of  our  Church,  the  ciders  should 
never  exceed  the  ministers  in  number,  and 
that  in  case  the  elders  after  being  duly  com- 
sioned  to  attend,  should  from  choice,  or  from 
any  personal  engagements  or  hindrances,  ab- 
sent themselves  from  the  Assembly,  the  minis- 
ters should  be  at  liberty  to  proceed  with  the 
business  of  the  body. 

In  the  first  or  lowest  of  our  Church  courts, 
viz.  in  the  church  session,  there  can  be  a  quo- 
rum without  a  minister  present,  as  appears 
from  chapter  ix.  sections  3  and  4  of  the  "Form 
of  Government."  This  matter  was  discussed 
in  the  very  able  communications  of  the  Rev. 
Wm.  M.  Hall,  and  I  should  not  now  dwell 
for  a  moment  upon  it,  were  it  not  to  take  no- 
tice of  the  mode  in  which  Dr.  Breckinridge 
endeavours  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argumen  t 
derived  from  it,  when  brought  to  bear  against 
his  main  position,  viz.  that  as  all  our  Church 
courts  consist  of  both  ministers  and  elders,  both 
are  essential  to  a  quorum.  •'  If  it  be  said," 
remarks  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  that  inasmuch  as 
in  extreme  cases  a  session  may  be  constituted 
without  the  presence  of  a  minister,  (ch.  ix.  sec. 
4.)  it  follows  that  in  extreme  cases  a  Presby- 
tery may  be  constituted  without  elders,  I  an- 
wer,  as  the  first  is  by  express  law,  the  second 
must  be  also,  and  there  is  no  such  law ;  fur- 
ther, the  existence  of  clear  law  for  the  former, 
and  the  total  want  of  it  for  the  latter,  is  conclu- 
sive against  it ;  and  further  still,  that  the  argu- 
ment contradicts  itself,  since  it  argues  from  the 
plenary  powers  of  clilcrs  to  the  total  want  of  all 
power,  from  their  paramount  importance  in  a 
parochial  Presbytery  to  their  utter  insignifi- 
cance in  a  classical  Presbytery,  from  their  abil- 


ity to  act  without  ministers  in  one  assembly, 
to  the  ability  of  the  ministers  to  act  without 
them  in  another  assembly — all  which  is 
absurd."  Let  us  now  examine  the  several 
parts  of  this  answer,  and  in  the  order  in  which 
they  occur.  "  As  the  first  is  by  express  law, 
the  second  must  be  also,  and  there  is  no  such 
law."  But  the  l\ict  is,  thnt  what  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge is  pleased  to  regard  as  an  express  law^ 
dispensing  in  certain  cases  with  the  presence 
of  a  minister,  is  nothing  more  than  an  excep- 
tion to  an  express  law  making  the  presence  of 
?  minister  and  of  two  ruling  elders  necessary 
to  the  quorum  of  a  church  session.  Had  there 
been  in  the  Constitution  no  specific  provision  re- 
quiring the  presence  of  both  the  minister  and  the 
elders,  and  making  the  minister  the  moderator 
of  the  body,  there  would  have  been  no  occa- 
sion for  the  express  law  of  which  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge speaks,  or  to  speak  with  more  exactness 
for  this  exception  to  an  express  law.  In  the 
absence  sf  all  specific  provision,  "the  law  o' 
common  sense  and  of  the  common  practice  of 
deliberative  bodies"  to  quote  again  the  language 
of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  would  determine  that  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  session  would  be 
a  quorum,  whether  the  minister  were  a  member 
or  not  of  that  majority.  It  is  not  then  in  vir- 
tue of  an  express  law  that  elders  in  given  cases 
may  make  a  quorum  of  session,  except  so  far 
as  there  is  in  these  cases  a  suspension  of  a 
more  general  and  express  provision  making 
the  presence  of  a  minister  necessary  to  a'quo- 
rum,  and  without  which  more  general  and  ex- 
press provision,  the  presence  of  a  minister  would 
not  be  neccssarj-.  Henc£  it  appears  from  this 
case,  that  there  can  be  a  quorum  of  a  church 
court,  without  the  presence  of  both  ministers 
and  elders,  and  without  any  express  provision 
dispensing  with  the  presence  of  either,  the 
common  and  well  known  practice  of  delibera- 
tive bodies  determining  this  matter.  The  next 
division  of  Dr.  B's  answer  is  the  same  as  the 
first,  with  the  simple  difiercnce  that  it  is  couched 
in  different  terms.  The  reply  to  the  fiist  is  a 
sufficient  reply  to  the  second.  "  And  further 
1  still,"  says  Dr.  B.  "  the  argument  contradicts 
itself,  since  it  argues  from  the  plenary  powers 


16 


of  elders  to  the  total  want  of  all  power,  from 
their  paramount  importance  in  a  parochial 
Presbytery  to  their  utter  insignificance  in  a 
dassical  Presbytery,  from  their  ability  to  act 
■without  ministers  in  one  assembly  to  the  abili- 
ty of  the  ministers  to  act  without  them  in  ano. 
ther  assembly  ;  all  which  is  absurd,"  To  say 
nothing  of  the  disingenuous  statement,  that 
those  who  differ  from  him  on  this  question 
argue  for  the  utter  insignificance  of  the  elders, 
and  their  total  want  of  all  power,  in  Presbyte- 
ry, I  would  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  argument  has  no  respect  whatever 
to  the  relative  powers  of  the  ministers  and  el- 
ders in  the  parochial  and  classical  assemblies, 
but  is  designed  merely  to  show  from  the  express 
language  of  our  Constitution  that  it  is  not  a 
tenable  position,  that  there  cannot  be  a  quorum 
of  any  church  court,  unless  there  be  present  a 
minister  or  ministers,  and  an  elder  or  elders. 
That  in  certain  cases  there  may  be  a  quorum 
of  a  Church  Session,  in  the  absence  of  the 
minister,  is  not  to  be  denied,  and  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge does  not  venture  to  deny  it,  but  endea- 
vours to  evade  the  force  of  the  argument 
drawn  from  it,  in  the  way  which  has  been 
mentioned. 

In  a  previous  communication,  I  showed  tha^ 
in  case  the  Elders  commissioned  to  attend  the 
meetings  of  Presbytery  exceeded  the  ministers 
in  number,  they  could  in  the  absence  of  the 
ministers  make  a  quorum,  unless  there  was 
an  express  provision  to  the  contrary  :  or  unless 
certain  duties  were  by  the  Constitution  as- 
signed to  the  Presbytery  which,  for  their  pro- 
per discharge,  required  the  presence  of  one  or 
more  ministers.  In  this  letter  I  have  underta. 
ken  to  show  that  according  to  the  plain  im- 
port of  our  Constitution,  there  can  be  a  quo- 
rum of  the  General  Assembly  without  an  el- 
der being  present,  and  a  quorum  of  a  Church 
Session  without  a  minister  being  present,  and 
yet  these  church  courts  or  assemblies  are  said 
to  consist  of  ministers  and  elders  just  as  much 
as  the  Presbyteries  are.  These  facts  then  af- 
ford additional  evidence  that  although  a  Pres- 
bytery consists  of  both  ministers  and  ruling  el- 
ders, this  is  no  proof  that  there  cannot  bo  a 


quorum   of  Presbytery  unless   both  ministers 
and  elders  are   present. 

In  the  answer  of  the  last  General  Assembly 
to  the  protest  against  their  decision  respecting 
the  quorum  of  a  Presbytery,  the  Assembly 
state  distinctly,  that  all  the  fourteen  or  more 
commissioners  necessary  to  a  quorum  of  the 
General  Assembly  may  be  ministers.  Yet  of 
this  statement  Dr.  Breckinridge  takes  no  no- 
tice, nor  does  he  venture  to  allude  to  the  pro- 
vision in  the  constitution  regulating  the  quo- 
rum of  this  body.  Why,  I  know  not;  but  of 
this  I  am  confident,  that  the  piovision,  found 
in  chapter  XIL  section  3,  of  our  "  Form  of 
Government,"  gives  no  support  to  the  views  of 
Dr.  Breckinridge. 


VI. 


Fehrnary  24. 
j\Ir,  Editor — Without  further  remark  on 
the  collateral  matters  handled  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, I  will  proceed  at  once  to  the  examination 
of  the  rule,  respecting  the  quorum  of  a  Pres- 
bytery, laid  down  in  our  "  Form  of  Govern- 
ment," chap.  X.  7,  and  to  a  comparison  of  this 
rule  with  the  resolution  of  the  last  Assembly 
on  the  same  subject.  If  upon  a  rigid  examin- 
ation of  the  terms  of  the  rule,  it  shall  ba  found 
that  the  Assembly  gave  no  decision  contrary 
to  their  import,  no  fault  should  be  found  with 
the  declaration  of  the  Assembly,  that  "  any 
three  ministers  being  duly  convened  are  a  quo- 
rum competent  to  the  transaction  of  all  busi- 
ness." I  need  scarcely  say  that  this  declara- 
tion does  not  imply  that  the  three  ministers, 
to  the  exclusion  of  any  elders  who  may  be 
present  and  who  belong  to  Presbytery,  are  a 
sufficient  number  of  presbyters  to  proceed  to 
business,  but  that  in  the  voluntary  absence  of 
the  elders,  they  are  a  sufficient  number,  or  in 
other  words  "  a  quorum."  In  this  view,  and 
it  is  the  only  true  one,  I  maintain  that  this  de- 
claration is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  rule 
in  our  "  Form  of  Government,"  chap.  x.  7, 
"  Any  three  ministers,  and  as  many  elders  as, 
may  be  present  belonging  to  the  Presbytery, 


16 


being  met  at  the  time  and  place  appointed, 
shall  be  a  quorum  competent  to  jiroceed  to  bu- 
siness." 

For  the  following  reasons,  I  maintain  the 
opinion  here  expressed. 

1.  In  declaring  that  the  persons  previously 
mentioned  "  shall  be  a  quorum,"  the  rule  sup- 
poses three  ministers  to  be  present,  and  that, 
without  any  allusion  expressed  or  implied  to 
the  possibility  of  less  than  that  number  being 
present.  It  is  indeed  a  thing  quite  possible, 
and  which  sometimes  actually  happens,  that 
less  than  three  ministers  meet  at  the  time  and 
place  appointed  for  the  meeting  of  Presbytery, 
but  this  is  a  case  not  supposed  here  :  on  the 
contrary  it  is  assumed  that  there  are  three 
ministers  actually  present.  Nor,  so  far  as  I 
am  aware,  is  this  denied. 

2.  In  reference  to  the  elders,  the  rule  does 
not  suppose  them  to  be  certainly  present,  but 
merely  the  possibility  that  one  or  more  may 
be  present :  and  by  consequence,  the  possibili- 
ty, that  one  and  all  may  be  absent ;  and  it  pro- 
vides that  in  case  any  elders  are  present,  be 
they  few  or  many,  they  are  to  be  associated 
with  the  ministers  in  making  the  quorum. 

The  words  "  may  be  present"  imply  an  un- 
certainty with   respect   to  the  presence  of  the 
elders,  just  as  clearly  as  if  that  doubt  had  been 
fully    and   formally   expressed.      The    doubt  j 
would  not  have  been  more  cleaily  expressed,  if 
the  language  had   been    as  follows  ;  "  And  as 
many  elders  as   may  be   present   belonging  to  I 
the   Presbytery,   if    any   belonging   to   it  be 
present."     The  affirmation   that  they  shall  be  ' 
a  part  of  the  quorum  rests,  upon  the  condition 
that  they  are  present.  If  this  condition  be  want-  i 
ing,  they  constitute   no   part  of  the  quorum  : 
and  this  is  the  precise   case  concerning  which  ' 
the   last  Assembly  declared,  that  "  any  three 
ministers  being  duly  convened  are   a  quorum 
competent  to  the  transaction  of  all  business." 
What  conceivable   reason   can   be  suggested  I 
for  employing  a  conditional  form  of  expression, ' 
on  the  supposition  that   it  was   the   design  of 
those  who   framed  the   rule  to   require  that  in 
every  case  there  should  be  one  or  more  elders 
present  ?     Would   it  not  have  been  the  most ) 


simple  and  natural  course  to  have  said,  "  Any 
three  ministers,  and  one  or  more  elders  belong- 
ing to  the    Presbytery  being    met  at  the  time, 
'  and  place  appointed,  shall  be  a  quorum  compe- 
'  tent  to  proceed  to  business." 

Again,  had  it  been  the  object  of  the  fiamers 
of  the  constilulion  to  include  in  a  single  sen- 
tence all  these  four  cases  :   1.    That  of  the  en- 
lire  absence  of  the   elders ;  2.    That  of  the 
presence  of  a  number  of  elders,  less   than  the 
number  of  ministers  assumed  to  be  present;  3. 
That  of  the  presence  of  an  equal  number ;  and 
4.    That  of  a  greater  number,  how  could  all 
these  have  been  better  expressed,  than  by  say- 
ing   "as  many   elders   as    may    be   present," 
which  implies  the  possibility  that" there  may  be 
7ione,  or  that  there  may  be  one,  t~.uo,  three,  or 
more,  limited   only  by  the  number  of  church 
sessions  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery. 
It  is  said  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  that  "  many" 
cannot  mean  "  none ;"  and  in  the  same  sense 
that  this  is  true,   it  is  also  true  that  ''many" 
cannot   mean    "  ojie,"  "  two,"  or  "  threey     It 
is  only  on  the  possibility  that  a  great  number, 
to  speak   comparatively,  and    not  one  or  two» 
may  be  present,  that  the  use  of  the  phrase,  "as 
many  as,"  can  here  be  regarded   as  at  all  ad- 
missible.    But  the  possibility  that  a  thing  may 
be,  is  also   the  possibility  that  it  may  not  be, 
and  if  the   phrase  "  as   many    as."   is   used, 
merely  because  of  the  possibility  of  a   great 
number  being  present,  it  does  not  of  necessity 
imply  the  presence  of  any  ;  for   it  is  just  as 
possible  that  there  should  be  none  present,  as 
that  there  should  be  "  a  great  number,"  which 
is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term  "  many." 
Let  us  suppose  the  following  inquiries  to  be 
made  of  a  member  of  Presbytery  :     "  Did  your 
Presbytery     meet    yesterday  ?      Xes.      How 
many  ministers  were  present  ?     Three.     How 
many   elders!     IVot  one."     Is  not   the  term 
"  many"  used  with  just  as  much  propriety  in 
the  case  where  the  answer  ie  "  none"  or  "  not 
one,"  as  in  that  where  the  answer  is  "  three," 
and  might  have  boon  "  thirty?"  If  so,  it  is  idle  to 
say  that  in  a  conditional  proposition  implying 
the  possibility  merely  of  a  great  number  being 
present,  there  is  not  implied  also  the  possibili- 


17 


ty,  that  none  may  bo  present.  This  being 
established,  it  is  equally  idle  to  maintain  that 
"  as  many  as  may  be  present"  implies  that 
there  must  be  at  least  one  or  two  present. — 
And  if  this  be  so,  then  it  is  clear,  that  the 
words  of  the  rule  relating  to  the  quorum  of  a 
Presbytery  mean,  that  any  three  ministers  be- 
ing duly  convened,  with  the  elders  belonging 
to  the  Presbytery,  if  any  be  present,  and  with- 
out them,  if  none  be  present,  are  a  quorum 
competent  to  proceed  to  business.  The  As- 
sembly gave  no  decision  contrary  to  this,  but 
m  strict  accordance  with  it.  Their  answer 
to  the  overture  submitted  to  them  had  reference 
only  to  the  case  presented  in  said  overture, 
which  proposed  as  a  matter  of  inquiry,  whe- 
ther in  the  absence  of  all  the  elders,  three  min- 
isters could  make  a  quorum.  To  this  the  As- 
sembly gave  a  reply  in  the  affirmative,  and  in 
doing  so  they  gave  an  answer  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  consti- 
tution. 

I  shall  now  take  notice  of  Dr.Breckinridge's 
reasons  for  asserting  that  the  terms  of  the  rule 
require  that  one  or  more  elders  should  be  pre- 
sent at  every  meeting  of  Presbytery  ;  and  of 
his  answers  to  some  of  the  objections  which 
may  be  made  to  his  exposition  of  the  rule. — 
This  I  shall  do  in  his  own  order,  passing  over 
entirely  or  but  just  touching  upon  those  of 
them  whicn  have  been  already  considered  in 
the  previous  discussions. 

The  first,  second,  and  third  of  these  rest 
upon  the  fact  that  the  different  church  courts 
consist  of  both  ministers  and  elders,  and  from 
this  fact  he  deduces  the  perfectly  gratuitous 
inference,  that  the  quorums  of  these  several 
courts  must  also  consist  of  both  ministers  and 
elders.  He  makes  no  discrimination  between 
the  composition  and  the  quorum  of  a  Presby- 
tery, the  one  having  respect  to  the  persons  who 
belong  to  the  Presbytery,  and  who  have  a 
right  to  take  part  in  its  proceedings  ;  aiid  the 
other  having  respect  only  to  those  who  must 
be  present  in  order  that  business  may  be  trans- 
acted. It  is  only  by  an  entire  disregard  of 
this  most  obvious  distinction  between  the  com- 
position and  the  quorum  of  this  church  court 


that  Dr.  Breckinridge  is  enabled  to  present 
even  the  shadow  of  an  argument  in  favour  of 
his  position,  that  there  cannot  be  a  quorum  of 
Presbytery,  unless  one  or  more  elders  be  pre- 
sent. But  as  the  fallacy  of  this  argument  has 
been  sufficiently  exposed,  I  shall  dwell  no  lon- 
ger upon  it. 

Dr.  Breckinridge's  fourth  reason  in  this — 
"  The  words  about  the  presence  of  Elders 
must  have  some  meaning  given  to  them,  if 
there  be  any  meaning  they  will  bear."  The 
words  about  the  presence  of  elders  have  a 
meaning,  and  an  important  meaning,  but  not 
the  meaning  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  is  pleased 
to  regard  as  the  only  one,  viz.  that  some  elders 
must  be  present.  They  mean  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  this,  that  if  any  elders  belonging 
to  Presbytery  be  present,  they  shall  all  be 
members  of  the  quorum,  even  if  they  outnum- 
ber the  ministers  :  and  although  this  might  be 
considered  sufficiently  provided  for  in  the  sec- 
ond section,  which  defines  the  composition  of 
a  Presbytery,  yet  it  was  wise  to  put  this  mat- 
ter beyond  dispute,  by  a  specific  provision  : 
and  the  more  so,  as  we  learn  from  Steuart  of 
Pardovan,  that  it  was  a  contested  point,  and 
that  in  the  Church  of  Scotland  there  were 
those  who  were  "  against  ruling  elders  their 
being  supernumerary  to  ministers  in  judica- 
tures." That  is,  there  were  those  who  were 
opposed  to  the  elders  outnumbering  the  minis- 
ters in  the  church  courts.  And  this  too,  not- 
withstanding their  rule  was,  as  it  respects  the 
elders  at  least,  the  very  same  with  our  own. 
"Yet,"  says  Steuart,  "  if  once  a  judicature  fix 
upon  a  quorum,  whereof  ahvays  so  many  are 
to  be  ministers,  though  double  their  number  of 
elders  should  come  and  be  present,  there  is 
nothing  as  yet  to  hinder  them  all  fiom  voting," 
This  among  other  things  is  embraced  in  our 
rule  respecting  a  quorum  of  Presbytery  ;  and 
it  matters  not  how  many  or  how  few  be  pre- 
sent, they  are  all  entitled  to  a  seat,  and  to  a 
vote  ;  and  yet  while  this  point  is  carefully  se- 
cured, the  conditional  form  of  the  rule  shows 
that  the  absence  of  the  elders  is  not  to  prevent 
the  transaction  of  business,  if  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  ministers  be  present. 

3 


18 


The  fifth  reason  assigned  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge is,  that  "  The  copulative  a7id,  plainly 
shows  that  others  besides  the  three  ministers 
were  designed  to  be  present."  But  may  not 
the  copulative  and,  connect  a  conditional  sen- 
tence, as  well  as  one  that  is  not  conditional ! 
And  in  case  the  sentence  connected  be  a  con- 
ditional one,  and  the  condition  itself  be  a  nul- 
lity, what  is  coupled  but  a  mere  form  of  words? 
Thus  if  the  elders  be  absent,  the  condition  on 
which  any  of  them  are  to  be  united  with  the 
ministers  in  making  a  quorum  is  wanting,  and 
of  course  the  three  ministers  will  be  a  quorum. 
Were  one  man  to  say  of  another,  "  He  is  a 
man  of  talent,  and  if  he  were  as  honest  as  he 
is  shrewd,  he  would  be  a  most  useful  man," 
would  not  the  copulative  a7id,  connect  a  con- 
ditional sentence  ?  And  would  it  not  be  just 
as  correct  a  use  of  this  copulative  as  if  it  were 
to  unite  two  simple  and  positive  sentences  ; 
or  as  if  the  following  form  of  words  had  been 
used  :  "  He  is  a  man  of  talents,  and  a  man  of 
integrity,  and  as  might  be  expected  he  is  a 
most  useful  man  ?"  It  is  not  correct  then, 
that  "  the  copulative  and,  plainly  shows  that 
others  besides  the  three  ministers  were  designed 
to  be  present."  It  shows  nothing  more  than 
this,  that  if  certain  others  be  present  they  are 
to  constitute  a  part  of  the  quorum. 

The  sixth  reason  given  by  Dr.  Breckinridge 
rests,  like  the  first  three,  upon  the  fact  that  a 
Presbytery  is  "  composed  of  two  distinct  class- 
es of  persons,  different  in  many  important  re- 
spects ;"  and  it  is  argued  from  this  that  "some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  indirection  must  be 
necessary  to  exclude  one  entire  class."  But 
who,  let  mc  ask,  insists  upon  the  exclusioji  of 
the  elders  ]  Who  questions  the  fiict  that  the 
ciders  belonging  to  the  Presbytery  have  a 
right  to  be  present  at  every  meeting  of  the  bo- 
dy, and  to  take  part  in  the  proceedings,  and 
that  it  is  their  duty  as  well  as  their  right  and 
privilege  to  attend  >  Why  then,  I  ask,  does 
Dr.  Breckinridge  speak  of  the  excluding  of 
one  entire  class  1  In  my  third  letter  I  showed 
that  although  a  body  consisted  of  two  classes 
of  persons  this  was  no  evidence,  that  some  of 
both  classes  must  be  present,  in  order  that  there 


may  bo  a  quorum,  and  to  that  letter  I  refer  the 
reader  for  the  proof  of  this  position. 

Dr.  Breckinridge's  next  and  seventh  remark 
is  an  answer  to  the  objection,  that  "may  be 
present  can  never  be  made  to  mean  mnst  be 
present,  and  therefore  there  must  be  implied  a 
condition  and  a  discretion."  "I  answer,"  says 
Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  that  mariy  can  never  be 
made  to  mean  7ione."  An  odd  answer  this, 
that  if  maif  cannot  mean  must,  many  cannot 
mean  none ;  and  I  presume  Dr.  Breckinridge 
regards  the  one  as  balancing  the  other.  But 
as  this  answer  was  fully  considered  in  discussing 
the  rule,  I  shall  pass  it  over  without  further 
comment. 

As  to  "  the  implied  discretion"  respecting 
the  attendance  of  the  elders  of  which  he  speaks 
and  which  he  denies,  I  know  of  no  one,  who 
rests  that  discretion  on  this  passage. 

His  eighth  remark  is,  "  Suppose  the  same 
phraseology  were  used  as  to  the  ministers  ne- 
cessary in  making  a  quorum,  as  is  used  in  re- 
gard to  the  elders,  thus :  '  a  Presbytery  con- 
sists of  all  the  ministers  and  one  Ruling  Elder 
from  each  congregation  within  a  particular 
district,  of  whom  (quorum)  as  many  tnirusfers 
and  as  many  Elders  as  may  be  present,  shall 
be  competent  to  proceed  to  business  ;'  in  this 
case  would  any  human  being  doubt  that  both 
ministers  and  elders  must  be  present?" — 
What  is  this  but  saying  that  if  the  rule  were 
different  from  what  it  is,  and  the  language  re- 
specting the  presence  of  the  ministers  as  ex- 
pressive of  a  contingency,  as  that  respecting 
the  presence  of  the  elders,  the  rule  in  that  case 
would  mean  what  Dr.  -Breckinridge  says  it 
now  means  ?  Were  this  the  case,  it  would  be 
no  proof  that  the  rule,  as  it  now  stands,  means 
what  Dr.  Breckinridge  maintairre  it  does ;  for 
in  the  three  ministers  supposed  to  be  present, 
the  rule  possesses  for  the  formation  of  a  quorum 
an  clement  subject  to  no  contingency,  while 
the  form  of  words,  suggested  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, makes  the  presence  of  the  ministers 
equally  doubtful  with  that  of  the  ciders,  and 
thus  renders  it  a  possible  supposition  that 
neither  ministers  or  elders  may  be  present 
a  supposition   altogether    at    variance    with 


I 


19 


the  terms  of  the  rule,  which  assumes  the 
presence  of  three  ministers  as  certain,  and 
the  presence  of  one  or  more  elders  as  possi- 
ble. In  the  rule  there  is  a  provision  for  a 
quorum,  if  the  condition  respecting  the  ciders 
^ail,  but  in  the  form  given  by  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
and  upon  his  understanding  of  it,  there  is  no 
such  provision  if  the  ci^ndition  be  wanting. — 
As  to  Dr.  Breckinridge's  supposition,  there 
would  be  little  or  no  difficulty  in  showing  that 
it  is  more  vague  than  he  imagines  it  to  be,  but 
as  it  is  not  important  to  do  so,  I  shall  omit  it. 

Of  his  reasons  and  answers  the  ninth  is  an 
argument  derived  from  the  fact  that,  "  a  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery /*ro  re  nata  cannot  be  con- 
vened unless  two  elders,  and  they  of  different 
congregations,  sign  the  requisition  for  it  along 
with  two  ministers."  But  the  argument  is  al- 
together fallacious.  Does  the  fact  here  men- 
tioned prove  that  the  elders  who  unite  with 
the  two  ministers  in  requesting  the  moderator 
to  call  a  meeting  pro  re  nata,  or  that  any 
other  elders  must  be  present  at  this  or  any 
other  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  1  These  very 
elders  who  concurred  in  calling  the  meeting 
could  not  attend  it,  unless  after  it  was  called, 
they  were  chosen  by  their  respective  sessions 
to  represent  them  at  said  meeting,  and  in  or- 
der that  there  may  be  a  special  meeting,  there 
is  no  need  that  the  moderator  or  any  one  of  the 
ministers  or  elders  who  requested  him  to  call 
the  meeting  should  attend  it.  The  fact  that 
two  ministers  and  tvFo  elders  must  unite  in 
making  the  request  for  a  special  meeting  no 
more  proves  that  both  ministers  and  elders 
must  be  present  at  such  meeting,  than  the  fact 
that  all  the  ministers  and  all  the  sessions  must 
be  informed  of  the  meeting,  and  be  summoned 
to  attend  in  person  or  by  delegation,  proves 
that  there  can  be  no  quorum  unless  all  the 
ministers  and  an  elder  from  each  congregation 
be  present.  All  have  a  right  to  attend,  and  all 
must  be  informed  of  the  meeting  ;  but  should 
there  be  but  three  ministers  assembled  in  pur- 
suance of  the  notice,  they  would  be  a  quorum, 
notwithstanding  the  meeting  could  not  have 
been  called  without  the  concurrence  of  two  el- 
ders.    The  three  ministers  indeed  could  not  be 


I  a  quorum  without  the  concurrence  of  all  the 
elders,  and  that  concurrence  expressed  by  the 
fact  of  their  absence.  As  the  several  sessions 
have  a  right  to  be  represented  in  every  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery,  it  is  obviously  proper  that 
some  of  the  elders  should  be  consulted,  and 
their  consent  be  had,  as  well  as  the  consent  of " 
a  portion  of  the  ministers,  before  a  special  meet- 
ing should  be  called.  And  this  doubtless  is  the 
reason  why  the  concurrence  of  two  elders  as 
well  as  that  of  two  ministers  was  made  neces- 
sary to  the  calling  of  a  special  meeting. 

Why  as  introductory  to  this  argument  found- 
ed upon  the  rule  relating  to  special  meetings  of 
Presbytery,  Dr.  Breckinridge  should  gravely 
remark,  "  It  is  the  settled  doctrine  of  our 
church,  and  of  all  other  Reformed  churches, 
that  the  right  to  convene  in  church  assemblies, 
both  stated  and  pro  re  nata,  is  divine,  inher- 
ent, and  altogether  independent  of  the  civil 
power,"  I  can  form  no  conjecture.  Is  it  within 
the  bounds  of  possibility,  that  there  is  in  our 
church,  or  even  in  our  whole  land  a  single  in- 
dividual, who  thinks  that  the  permission  of  the 
civil  magistrate  must  be  had,  before  a  meeting 
of  a  church  court  can  be  held  ?  If  there  is  not 
what  call  was  there  for  this  remark  respecting 
the  civil  power  ? 

Dr.  Breckinridge's  tenth  remark  is  an  answer 
to  the  arguments  drawn  from  the  possible  in- 
convenience that  might  result  in  extreme  cases 
upon  the  construction  of  the  rule  for  which  he 
contends,  and  fiom  the  possible  inattention  or 
neglect  of  the  elders.  To  his  views  on  these 
points  I  have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  my 
assent.  Yet  I  may  remark  that  while  the  ar- 
guments drawn  from  the  possible  inconven. 
ience  in  extreme  cases  are  fallacious  if  designed 
to  show  the  import  of  the  rule,  they  are  not 
fallacious  if  used  to  show  what  it  is  expedient 
the  rule  should  be. 

Dr.  Breckinridge's  eleventh  remark  is  an 
answer  to  an  objection  brought  against  his 
construction  of  the  rule,  and  founded  upon  the 
fact  that  in  Presbytery  the  ministers  and  elders 
vote  jointly,  and  not  by  classes.  This  point 
has  been  fully  considered  in  the  previous  num- 
bers, and  if  I  am  not  greatly  deceived,  the  ob- 


20 


jection  has  been  shown  to  be  a  valid  one,  and 
the  argument  to  which  he  objects,  has  been 
proved  to  be  consistent  with  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  the  constitution  ;  and  further,  it  would 
be  true,  as  shown  in  my  third  letter,  that  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  ruling  elders  might  make  a 
quorum,  were  it  not  that  this  very  provision, 
now  under  consideration  requires  three  minis- 
ters to  be  present,  or  that  some  of  the  duties 
assigned  to^he  Presbytery  required  for  their 
proper  discharge  the  presence  of  one  or  more 
ministers.  The  mere  fact  that  a  body  consists 
of  two  classes,  presents  no  dillicully  in  the  way 
of  a  sufficient  number  of  either  class  being  a 
quorum.  Nor  does  it  follow  on  the  ground 
here  taken,  that  Ruling  Elders  have  a  right  to 
impose  hands  in  the  ordination  of  ministers, 
any  more  that  it  does  that  they  have  a  right 
to  preach  the  sermon,  to  give  the  charge,  or  to 
make  the  ordaining  prayer.  In  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  the  Presbyteries  consist  of  ministers 
and  elders,  and  quorums  may  be  composed  of 
ministers  alone,  and  yet  it  is  undeniable,  that, 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  none  but  ministers, 
take  part  in  the  imposition  of  hands. 

The  twelfth  and  last  remark  made  by  Dr. 
Breckinridge,  in  sujiporl  of  his  construction  of 
the  rule  relating  to  the  quorum  of  a  Presbyte- 
ry is  an  answer  to  an  objection  to  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  rule,  and  derived  from  the  fact, 
that  in  a  church  session  the  ciders  alone  could 
in  given  cases  make  a  quorum.  As  this  point 
was  fully  discussed  in  my  last  letter,  I  shall 
say  nothing  more  in  regard  to  il. 

I  have  now  examined  the  rule  in  our  "Form 
of  Government,"  ch.  x.  7,  and  have  compared 
it  with  the  resolution  of  the  last  Assembly 
touching  the  points  embraced  in  this  rule,  and 
I  have  shown  that  there  is  no  discrepance  be- 
tween the  rule  and  the  decision  of  the  Assem- 
bly. I  have  also  examined  all  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's arguments  in  favour  of  his  exposition  of 
the  rule,  and  whether  I  have  succeeded  in 
showing  that  each  one  is  defective,  and  fails 
to  establish  what  it  was  Dr.  Breckinridge's  aim 
to  prove  by  it,  I  leave  to  the  judgment  of  the 
reader. 


VII. 

JUarch  2. 
►!/;•.  Editor — Having  shown  in  my  last  com- 
munication, that  according  to  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  the  rule,  in  our  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, adjusting  the  quorum  of  a  Presbvtery, 
any  three  ministers  regularly  convened  are,  in 
the  absence  of  the  elders,  competent  to  proceed 
to  business,  I  propose  now  to  suggest  some 
considerations  which,  at  the  time  the  Constitu- 
tion was  adopted,  would  have  made  it  inexpe- 
dient to  have  a  rule  rendering  the  presence  of 
ruling  elders  absolutely  necessary  to  a  quorum. 

1.  In  not  a  few  instances  there  were  Pres- 
byterian churches  scattered  throughout  the 
wide  extent  of  our  land,  probably  distant  from 
all  other  churches  from  lifty  to  a  hundred  miles, 
and  even  more,  in  which  it  would  have  been 
necessary  for  one  Presbytery  or  another  to 
meet,  if  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  instal  the 
pastors  of  these  several  churches.  Should 
these  churches  in  every  case  have  had  an  el- 
der, it  might  have  often  happened,  that  from 
sickness,  absence  from  home,  the  pressing  na- 
ture of  his  engagements,  or  by  unforeseen  hin- 
drances, the  elder  of  the  church  at  which  the 
Presbytery  were  to  meet,  would  be  absent,  and 
then  the  ministers  called  from  their  homes  and 
met  according  to  appointment  would  be  obliged 
to  separate  without  accomplishing  the  purpose 
for  which  they  had  been  called  together.  The 
case  here  supposed  that  there  may  be  but  one 
elder  belonging  to  a  church  able  to  support  a 
pastor,  is  not  a  case  made  for  the  present  oc- 
casion ;  it  is  one  supposed  in  our  Form  of 
Government  itself.  See,  ch.  ix.  2.  "  Of  this 
judicatory,  (the  church  session)  two  elders,  if 
there  be  as  many  in  the  congregation,"  &c. 

2.  While  it  is  obviously  proper,  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  system  of  government  re- 
ceived by  our  Church,  that  the  ruling  elders, 
properly  the  representatives  of  the  people, 
should  have  the  right  to  be  present  at  all  the 
n)eetings  of  our  church  courts,  yet  it  is  as  obvi- 
ously proper  that  they  should  not  be  compelled 
to  attend  t  em.  The  services  rendered  by 
them  to  the  church  are  wholly  gratuitous ; 
they  receive  no  compensation  for  the  time  de- 


21 


voted  to  an  atlenJance  upon  the  meetings  of 
our  church  judicatures  ;  and  not  unfrequently 
is  it  the  case,  that  their  duties  to  their  famihes 
forbid  their  absence  from  home.  With  the 
ministers  it  is  in  some  of  tlic  respects  just  men- 
tioned otherwise.  They  are  paid  for  their  time 
and  services ;  they  have  engaged  to  devote 
themselves  to  the  business  of  the  church,  and  to 
attend  to  the  vawous  calls  that  may  be  made  up- 
on their  time  and  purse.  While  therefore  min- 
isters and  elders  should  be  equally  at  liberty  to 
attend  all  meetings  of  Presbytery  and  other 
church  courts  and  when  present  be  equally  at  li- 
berty to  give  their  opinions  and  their  votes  in 
all  matters  that  may  come  before  them,  it  is 
clearly  proper  that  the  elders  should  be  left,  as 
by  the  Constitution  they  are  left,  to  do  in  this 
matter  just  as  judgment  and  conscience  shall 
direct. 

3.  If  the  views  here  presented  be  just,  it 
would  be  expecting  too  much  to  expect  of  the 
elders  to  leave  their  homes,  at  a  sacrifice  of 
their  time,  of  their  funds,  and  in  some  cases  of 
their  very  means  of  subsistence,  and  to  be  ab- 
sent from  their  families  for  days  together,  to  do 
that  which  the  ministers  were  fully  compet  ent 
to  do,  and  which  in  the  churches  of  Scotland 
and  Ireland,  ministers  alone  often  did.  It  is 
not  then  to  be  presumed,  that  those  who  framed 
our  constitution  would  lequire  of  the  elders 
that  which  in  given  circumstances  would  be 
oppressive  and  clearly  unjust  to  them  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed,  that 
they  would  permit  the  interests  of  the  churches 
to  suffer  from  the  absence  of  men  whose  atten- 
dance upon  meetings  of  Presbyteries  they 
could  not  with  propriety  enforce.  That  they 
did  not  make  the  attendance  of  the  elders  obli- 
gatory is  evident  from  the  words  of  the  law ; 
and  the  design  of  these  remarks  is  to  show 
that  there  were  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for 
making  the  law  on  this  subject  just  what  they 
did. 

4.  In  framing  a  law  in  reference  to  any 
matter,  it  is  the  part  of  common  sense  so  to  ad- 
just the  terms  of  it,  that  they  shall  be  adapted 
to  all  the  cases  which  can  reasonably  be  ex- 
pected to  occur ;  and    if  these  cannot  all  be 


embraced  under  one  general  provision,  the  next 
best  thing  is  to  make  a  special  provision  for  the 
cases  not  included  in  the  general  one,  and 
which  it  is  clearly  foreseen  will  occur,  as  was 
done  in  our  rules  respecting  the  quorum  of 
a  church  session  ;  the  general  provision  in  re- 
gard to  which  is  that  two  elders,  if  there  be  so 
many,  with  the  pastor,  shall  be  the  quorum, 
and  yet  there  is  also  a  special  provision  for  the 
case  in  which  the  elders  alone  may  be  a  quorum. 
But  in  regard  to  a  quorum  of  Presbytery  we 
have  no  special  provision,  as  an  exception  to  one 
more  general,  and  it  is  therefore  obvious  that  the 
rule  was  intended  to  include  all  the  cases  that 
could  possibly  arise,  on  the  supposition  that 
there  were  three  ministers  present ;  and  upon 
the  interpretation  given  to  the  rule  by  the  last 
Assembly,  the  extreme  as  well  as  the  ordinary 
cases  are  provided  for. 

With  respect  to  the  expediency  of  modify- 
ing the  rule  so  as  to  make  the  presence  of  ru- 
ling elders  necessary  to  a  quorum,  I  have  very 
little  to  say  ;  and  should  the  elders  desire  such 
an  alteration,  for  one  I  shall  make  no  objection 
to  it,  especially  if  provision  be  made  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  the  churches  and  Presbyte- 
ries in  new  settlements,  where  a  rule  of  this 
kind  would  operate  severely  upon  the  elders 
themselves  as  well  as  upon  the  interests  of  the 
church.  For  if  the  attendance  of  the  elders 
is  made  essential  to  a  quorum,  then  it  follows 
that  a  further  change  must  be  made  so  as  to 
compel  the  elders  as  well  as  the  ministers  to  at- 
tend, and  to  censure  them  if  they  do  not,  and 
which  Dr.  Breckinridge  contends  it  is,  under 
our  present  rules,  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery 
to  do.  If  the  ciders  are  desirous  to  submit  to 
this  yoke,  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  says  they 
are  bound  to  bear,  and  to  relinquish  the  liberty 
they  now  enjoy  of  attending  the  meetings  of 
Presbytery  or  not,  as  they  deem  it  best,  the 
ministers,  I  am  persuaded,  will  not  resist  their 
wishes  in  this  respect,  whatever  they  may  think 
of  the  wisdom  of  such  a  choice,  a  choice,  how- 
ever, which  I  am  persuaded  the  elders  will 
never  make.  Those  who  maintain  that,  under 
our  rules,  the  elders  cannot  be  compelled  to  at- 
tend the  meetings  of  Presbytery,  and  that  even 


oo 


in  the  absence  of  the  elders  there  may  be  a 
quorum,  are  no  less  desirous  than  those  who 
maintain  opinions  opposite  to  these,  that  there 
should  always  be  a  full  attendance  of  the  el- 
ders at  the  meetings  of  our  church  courts,  and 
I  will  not  concede  to  Dr.  Breckinridge  one  par- 
ticle more  of  zeal  for  the  rights  and  jirivileges 
of  the  elders  than  is  possessed  by  those  oppo- 
sed to  his  views. 

Before  closing  this  communication,  I  wish  to 
correct  an  error  that  occurred  in  my  last  letter 
in  citing  the  resolution  of  the  last  Assembly 
respecting  the  quorum  of  a  Presbytery,  sub- 
stituting the  word  "  duly"  for  the  word  "  regu- 
larly." I  was  led  into  the  error  by  copying 
the  resolution  from  the  protest  presented  to 
the  Assembly  against  it,  in  which  protest  the 
resolution  was  not  copied  verbatim,  though  it 
was  given  with  the  marks  of  quotation.  I 
had  not  then  a  copy  of  the  minutes  at  hand, 
but  had  a  copy  of  the  protest  in  a  newspaper. 
The  substitution  of  the  one  term  for  the  other 
does  not  affect  in  the  least  the  argument,  and 
I  should  not  advert  to  it  were  it  not  that  the  i 
substitution  was  made  in  a  quotation,  and 
might  argue  carelessness  on  my  part  in  copy- 
ing the  resolution,  if  the  source  of  the  error 
were  not  pointed  out.  In  no  other  case  have 
I  made  a  quotation  at  second  hand,  and  shall 
make  none  other  unless  I  give  my  authority  at 
the  time. 

P.  S.  When  I  wrote  my  reply  to  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge's remarks  respecting  the  six  Scottish 
Assemblies  condemned  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1G38, 1  had  not  at  hand  the  acts  of  this 
General  Assembly,  and  yet  I  produced  evi- 
dence sufficient  to  show  that  he  had  misappre- 
hended the  facts  in  the  case,  and  that  the  six 
Assemblies  had  not  been  condemned  because 
there  were  no  elders  in  attendance  upon  them, 
but  because  among  other  defects,  no  Elders 
had  been  commissioned  or  sent  from  the  Pres- 
byteries: the  king  not  permitting  the  Presby- 
teries to  send  any  with  the  ministers  whom  he 
had  instructed  them  to  send.  There  were  el- 
ders present,  but  by  order  of  the  king,  not  by 
appointment  of  the  presbyteries,  and  it  was 


this  in  part  that  vitiated  these  assemblies,  and 
not  the  mere  absence  of  elders  regularly  com- 
missioned or  sent.  And  had  there  not  been 
an  elder  present,  the  case  of  these  assemblies 
would  have  had  no  analogy  to  the  case  of  a 
church  court  to  which  elders  were  regularly 
commissioned,  but  from  the  meetings  of  which 
they  chose  to  absent  themselves,  as  is  evident 
from  a  mere  statement  of  the  fsfct  that  to  these 
Assemblies,  the  Presbyteries  were  not  permit- 
ted to  send  any  elders.  How  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, with  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  1638  in  his  hands,  should  ever  have  thought 
of  adducing  the  case  of  the  condemned  As- 
semblies, as  affording  any  countenance  to  his 
position  that  no  business  can  be  lawfully  done 
in  any  church  court  in  the  absence  of  the  el- 
ders, and  that  too  without  any  respect  to  the 
cause  of  their  absence,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to 
conceive.  In  not  a  single  instance  is  the  fact 
of  their  absence  mentioned  as  a  reason  for  con  - 
demning  these  Assemblies,  but  the  fact  that 
they  had  no  commission  from  Presbytery  to 
attend. 

I  will  now  cite  in  proof  of  what  I  say  every 
thing  in  these  acts  pertaining  to  the  elders. 
Among  the  reasons  assigned  for  annulling  the 
Assembly  of  1606,  Elders  are  not  once  men- 
tioned, although  from  the  form  of  expression 
used  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  reason,  it 
may  be  inferred  that  none  but  ministers  were 
commissioned  by  the  Presbyteries  to  attend, 
yst  this  is  not  mentioned  as  a  reason  for  an- 
nulling this  Assembly.  The  words  to  which 
I  allude  are  the  following  :  "  From  the  power 
of  these  ministers  who  vvere  present.  Their 
Presbyteries  did  not  limit  them." 

From  the  reasons  assigned  for  annulling  the 
Assembly  of  lOOS,  I  give  the  following  pas- 
sages. "  Many  of  the  voters  in  that  pretended 
Assembly  had  no  lawful  commission  from  the 
Kirk,  to  wit,  forty-two  noblemen,  officers  of 
estate,  counsellors,  and  barons.  .  .  .  The 
noblemen  were  as  commissioners  from  the 
King." — "  In  a  lawful  Assembly  there  should 
be  none  but  commissioners  from  Presbyteries, 
Burghs  and  L'niversities,  and  but  three  minis- 
ters at  most,  with   one  elder,  commissioners 


23 


from  every  Presbytery,  according  to  the  act 
made  at  Dundee,  1597.  But  in  that  pretend- 
ed Assembly,  there  were  four  ministers  from 

the  several  Presbyteries,   &c 

whereas  (here  were  no  ruling  elders  sent  from 
Presbijteries,  according  to  the  book  of  policy 
and  act  of  Dundee." 

From  the  reasons  for  annulling  the  Assem- 
bly of  1610,  I  give  the  following  passages. 
"  And  whereas  there  were  no  ruling  ciders 
sent  from  the  Presbyteries  to  that  pretended 
Assembly,  as  the  roll  of  commissioners  show- 
eth."  "  There  were  thirty  voters  of  noblemen 
and  barons,  beside  the  pretended  bishops,  who 
had  no  commission  from  any  piesbytcry.  In 
the  fourth  session  of  this  pretended  Assembly 
it  is  plainly  said,  that  the  noblemen  and  barons 
came  to  it  by  the  King's  direction." 

From  the  reasons  for  annulling  the  Assem- 
bly of  J  61 6, 1  cite  the  following.  "  There  were 
twenty-five  noblemen  and  gentlemen  voters 
without  commission  from  the  Kirk  .  .  .  j 
whereas  there  were  no  ruling  elders  having  ! 
commission  from  their  Presbyteries  at  that  As- 
sembly." 

In  showing  the  nullity  of  the  Assembly  of 
1617,  the  word  elder  is  not  mentioned. 

From  the  reasons  assigned  for  annulling 
the  Assembly  of  1618,  I  give  the  following 
passages.  "  There  were  nineteen  noblemen 
and  barons,  eleven  bishops  that  had  no  com- 
mission from  the  Kirk.  .  .  .  And  for  ru- 
ling elders,  there  were  none  at  all  with  com- 
mission from  their  Presbyteries." 

I  have  now  given  in  the  very  words  of  the 
acts  everything  in  them  pertaining  to  the  el- 
ders. And  from  these  extracts  it  is  evident 
beyond  dispute,  that  where  elders  are  men- 
tioned, regard  is  had  to  the  fact  that  they  had 
not  been  commissioned  or  sent  to  these  As- 1 
semblies  by  their  Presbyteries,  and  yet  the  case  j 
of  these  Assemblies  Dr.  Breckinridge  brings  '• 
forward  as  evidence  that  in  the  Scottish  Church 
the  mere  absence  of  the  elders  was  regarded  I 
as  a  reason  for  declaring  an  Assembly  null,  j 
What  most  distant  resemblance  is  there  be-  j 
tween  the  case  of  these  condemned  Assemblies, 
and  the  case  of  a  church  court  to  which  every 


session  within  its  bounds  is  at  perfect  liberty 
to  send  an  elder  as  their  representative,  and  in 
which  every  elder  who  has  a  commission  to  do 
so,  can  take  his  seat  without  let  or  hindrance, 
and  speak  and  vote  in  all  matters  that  may 
come  before  the  body.* 


VIII. 


March  9, 
Mr.  Editor. — Among  the  other  strange  as- 
sertions in  his  speech  on  the  Quorum  Question, 
Dr.  Breckinridge  has  the  following,  in  relation 
fo  the  Presbyteries  and  the  Synod  declared  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  1 837  to  be   out  of 
our    connexion — "  The  churches,    the   Pres- 
byteries, and  the   Synods  were  declared  to  be 
not  Presbyterian  mainly  upon  the  very  points 
this  day  involved  ;"  and,  as  if  it  were  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  this  most  singular  assertion,  he 
adds,  "  They  had  no  ruling  elders,  and  there- 
fore were  not  Presbyterian."     And  yet  after  a 
few  more  sentences  he  says,  "  It  is  in  vain  to 
say,  the  disowned  Synods  had  no  elders  ap- 
pointed in  any  of  their  churches,  the  fact  is 
otherwise — there  were  elders,  more  or  less,  in 
many  churches,  and  as  it  regards  the  Pres- 
byteries and  Synods,  the  fact  of  presence,  not 
the  fact  of  existence,  is  the  sole  fact  in  the  case." 


*  Not  having  access  to  any  collection  of  the 
acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  and  learning  that  there  was  such 
a  collection  in  the  library  of  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Newburgh,  I  requested  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Forsyth  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy  of  the 
reasons,  set  forth  in  the  acts  of  1638,  for  con- 
demning the  six  preceding  Assemblies.  As  the 
collection  in  this  library  did  not  include  the 
acts  for  1638,  Dr.  Forsvth  was  unable  to  com- 
ply with  my  request,  yet  he  very  kindly  fur- 
nished me  with  a  statement  of  the  reasons  for 
annulling  the  assemblies,  which  he  translated 
from  a  work  of  Spong's,  and  also  with  some 
extracts  from  Stevenson's  Histoiy,  which  con- 
firm the  views  presented  in  my  third  letter. 
Of  the  information  thus  furnished  I  should 
have  gladly  availed  myself,  had  I  not  soon  after 
obtained  from  my  friend  Dr.  McLeod  of  New 
York,  a  copy  of  the  acts  themselves,  fronr 
which  I  have  made  the  above  extracts. 


24 


A  comparison  of  these  sentences  brings  to  [  selves  in  a  situation  in  which  the  government 
recollection  the  words  of  Flaccus — "  Quando-  and  order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  cannot 
que  bonus  dormitat  Homcrus,"  and  1  think  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  fully  carried  into 
the  Doctor  himself  will  idmit  that  in  writincr  cfTcct,  in  relation  either  to  themselves  or  to  the 
this  part  of  his  speech,  he  has  not  been  as  wide  people  of  whom  they  have  charge,  this  General 
awake  as  usual.  In  the  first  place  he  tells  us,  Assembly  feel  it  to  be  indispensable  to  declare 
that  the  Churches,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods  that  this  is  an  evil  which  ought  to  be  corrected 
had  no  ruling  elders,  and  in  the  next  place,  as  speedily  as  circumstances  will  permit: 
that  "  there  were  elders  more  or  less,  in  many  therefore.  Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the 
churches,"  and  that  as  it  regatds  the  Presby- '  next  General  Assembly  to  correct  the  evil  here- 
teries  and  Synods,  the  fact  of  presence,  not  the  in  submitted,  this  General  Assembly  being 
fact  of  existence,  is  the  sole  fact  in  the  case."  willing  that  the  interval  of  a  year  should  be 
If  this  last  clause  has  any  meaning,  it  must  allowed  to  tlie  parties  concerned,  to  correct  for 
mean  that  the  four  Synods,  and  their  Piesby-  themselves  the  evil  in  question,  if  such  shall 
leries,  and  their  churches  too,  were  declared  to  be  their  choice."  (See  printed  minutes.) 
bo  not  Presbyterian  mainly  for  the  reason,  that  |  The  original  resolution  required  the  Presby- 
at  the  meetings  of  the  Presbyteries  and  Synods  teries  to  correct  the  evil  with  as  little  delay  as 
no  elders  were  present.  Of  the  truth  of  this  |  possible  ;  the  one  moved  by  Dr.  Green  referred 
assertion,  I  venture  to  say  that  he  cannot  pro-  the  matter  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  with 
duce  a  single  sentence  in  any  one  of  the  reso-  the  view  of  giving  the  parties  concerned  a  year 
lutions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  or  in  to  correct  for  themselves  the  evil  in  question, 
any  one  of  the  papers  a[)proved  by  that  body,  Both  were  warmly  opposed  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
which  affords  the  least  countenance  to  it.  i  ridge,  and  the  one  by  Dr.  Green  was  adopted 
And  I  venture  to  say  further,  that  it  was  not  so  contrary  to  his  wishes  and  to  his  vote,  and  by 
understood  at  the  time  by  Dr.  Breckinridge  a  large  majority.  Among  the  reasons  urged 
himself,  nor  as  late  as  when  the  General  As-  by  Dr.  Breckinridge  against  these  resolutions, 
sembly  of  1838  held  its  sessions.  On  the  I  distinctly  recollect  his  mentioning,  that  it  was 
afternoon  of  Thursday  the  30lh  of  May,  1838, ;  not  inconsistent  with  Presbyterianism  that 
"  A  resolution  was  ollered  by  Dr.  Baxter  rela-  i  Presbyterian  ministers  should  be  ppstors  of 
tive  to  Presbyteries  composed  in  part  of  pastors  Congregational  churches,  and  that  it  was  no 
of  Congregational  churches,  which  was  con-  I  part  of  the  objection  to  the  four  exscinded  Sy- 
sidered  and  laid  on  the  table."  (Sec  printed  I  nods,  that  their  ministers  were  in  many  in- 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly.)  This  motion  to  !  stances  pastors  of  Congregational  churches,  but 
lay  on  the  table  was  made,  if  I  mistake  not,  by  I  that  in  virtue  of  the  plan  of  union  men  who 
Dr.  Breckinridge,  who  strenuously  opposed  the  j  were  neither  ministers  nor  elders  were  per. 
resolution.  On  the  next  morning,  and  "  on  !  mitted  to  sit  in  our  church  courts.  And  in 
motion  of  Dr.  Green,  the  resolution  of  Dr.  I  proof,  that  it  was  perfectly  consistent  with 
Baxter,  laid  on  the  table  yesterday,  was  taken  Presbyterianism  for  Presbyterian  ministers  to 
up,  and  postponed.  A  substitute  was  offered  be  at  the  same  time  members  of  Presbytery^ 
by  Dr.  Green,  which  was  considered  and  and  pastors  of  Congregational  churches,  he  re- 
adopted,  as  follows,  viz.  Considering  that  it  is  j  ferrcd  to  the  church  of  Geneva,  and  added,  that 
manifestly  incongruous  and  unreasonable  that  in  the  meetings  of  the  venerable  company  of 
the  government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  pastors,  no  ruling  elders  ever  took  part,  that  the 
should  be  administered  by  those  who  do  not  j  ministers  alone  constituted  the  Prosliytery,  and 
submit  to  it  for  themselves  ;  and  whereas,  there  I  that  the  churches  were  congregational.  This 
arc,  in  this  Church,  certain  brethren  in  the  [  was  the  ground  taken  in  1838  by  this  strenuous 
ministry,  who,  by  taking  the  pastoral  charge  of  ■  asscrter,  ns  he  would  feign  represent  himself. 
Congregational  churches,  have  placed  them-  j  of  the  divine  rights  of  ruling  ciders,  and  ho  was 


25 


just  as  infallible  then  as  he  is  now.*  Having 
in  his  change  of  views  gone  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  he  maintains  not  only  that  ciders 
must  be  delegated  to  all  the  meetings  of  Pres- 
bytery, but  that  some  elders  must  be  present  at 
every  meeting  of  Presbytery,  or  that  no  busi- 
ness can  be  lawfully  done,  and  further  that  even 
Presbyterian  ministers  in  a  settled  state  of  the 
chuich  "  are  not  in  strict  right  entitled  to  ap- 
pear in  them  (Presbyteries  or  other  church 
courts,)  except  as  they  are  ministers  of  the 


*  Since  the  above  letter  appeared  in  the 
Presbyterian,  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  denied  that 
he  said  that  the  churches  of  Geneva  were  con- 
gregational ;  and  it  is  possible  that  as  to  this 
and  to  the  statement  in  the  preceding  clause, 
"  that  the  ministers  alone  constituted  the  Pres- 
byteiy."  I  may  have  associated  the  only  fair 
inference  from  his  remarks  respecting  the 
Church  of  Geneva  with  the  remarks  them- 
selves ;  and  thus  possibly  have  reported  him 
in  these  two  clauses  inaccurately.  In  the 
course  of  his  observations  he  adduced  the 
"  Venerable  Company  of  Pastors"  as  fur- 
nishing a  corroboration  of  his  position,  that  it 
was  consistent  with  Presbyterianism,  for  the 
ministers  of  a  Presbytery  to  be  pastors  of  con- 
gregational churches,  and  he  stated  then,  what 
he  does  not  now  deny,  that  in  this  venerable 
body  no  elder  ever  had  a  seat.  If  he  did  not 
intend  to  convey  the  impression  that  this  Com- 
pany corresponded  to  a  Presbytery  composed 
of  ministers,  and  ministers  who  were  pastors 
of  churches,  which  bore  to  the  Company  a  re- 
lation like  to  that  between  one  of  our  Presby- 
teries and  the  congregational  churches  whose 
pastors  were  members  of  the  Presbytery,  why 
did  he  cite  this  case  ''  For  any  other  purpose, 
the  reference  was  utterly  irrelevant,  and  could 
have  no  other  eflect  than  to  deceive.  And  I 
have  the  more  distinct  recollection  of  this  re- 
ference, from  the  circumstance  that  it  was  the 
first  statement  of  the  kind  respecting  the  Ven- 
erable Company  I  had  ever  heard.  As  I  am 
unwilling  that  the  coarseness  of  his  reply 
should  prevent  my  correcting  an  error  into 
which  it  is  possible  I  may  have  fallen,  in  sta- 
ting a  matter  that  occurred  six  years  ago,  and 
which  I  only  professed  to  give  from  memory, 
I  have  thought  it  proper  to  add  this  note :  and 
this  is  the  only  notice  I  shall  in  all  probability 
ever  take  of  his  reply  to  my  strictures  on  his 
speeches,  fully  persuaded  that  the  character  of 
his  remarks  is  such  as  to  render  an  answer  to 
them  unnecessary. 


particular  churches  which  made  up  the  Pres- 
bytery." Was  it  as  delegates  from  their  re- 
spective churches  that  the  pastors  of  the  Con- 
gregational churches  were,  according  to  the 
views  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  1838,  to  be  en- 
rolled as  members  of  Presbytery  ?  If  in  1837, 
four  Synods,  each  comprising  several  Presby-  ■ 
teries,  were  declared  not  to  be  Presbyterian, 
because  no  elders  attended  the  meetings  of  these 
bodies,  is  it  not  marvellous  that,  in  183S,  Dr. 
Breckiniidge,  who  reminds  us  as  it  is  not  un- 
usual for  him  to  do,  that  he  "  was  an  actor  in 
those  scenes,"  and  who  speaks  of  "  all  my 
elTjrt?,  and  no  man  made  more  to  reform  the 
Church  at  that  period,"  should  have  thought 
of  urging  as  a  reason  against  removing  the  evil 
complained  of  in  the  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Assembly,  that  it  was  consistent  with  Presby- 
terianism that  there  should  be  a  Presbytery 
without  ruling  elders  ever  belonging  to  the 
body,  and,  of  course,  without  ruling  elders  ever 
being  present  at  its  meetings .''  Again  I  ask, 
is  it  not  marvellous,  that  he  should  have  taking 
this  ground,  when,  according  to  his  present 
version  of  the  matter,  the  Assembly  of  1837 
had  declared  the  Presbyteries  connected  with 
the  four  disowned  Synods  to  be  out  of  our  con- 
nexion, not  because  very  many  of  the  churches 
under  thecare  of  these  Presby  teries  where  either 
wholly  or  in  part  Congregational,  and  were 
represented  in  our  church  courts  by  men  who 
had  never  adopted  our  standards,  but  because 
no  ruling  elders  attended  the  meetings  of  these 
bodies  ?  I  ask  these  questions  because  Dr. 
Breckinridge  says  explicitly,  "  the  fact  of  pre- 
sence, and  not  of  existence,  is  the  sole  fact  in 
the  case."  And  to  make  the  action  in  regard 
to  the  four  Synods  of  any  avail  to  his  argument 
it  must  be  so,  that  it  was  the  non-attendance  of 
the  elders  upon  the  meetings  of  the  exscinded 
Synods  and  Presbyteries,  and  not  the  non-ex- 
istence of  elders,  and  the  substitution  of  Con- 
gregational government  for  that  of  the  elder- 
ship that  mainly  induced  the  Assembly  of  i  837 
to  declare  the  four  Synods  to  be  no  part  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  But  where  is  the  proof 
of  all  this?  There  is  none.  It  is  a  mere  figment 
of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  fancy.      The  Plan  of 


26 


Union  was  annulled  and  declared  void  from  the 
beginning,  because  its  provisions  were  at  vari- 
ance with  the  constitution,  and  because  an  ex- 
tension had  been  given  to  it  never  designed. 
It  permitted  men  who  were  not  Presbyterians, 
men  who  had  never  received  our  Confession  of 
Faith,  men  who  did  not  approve  our  Form  of 
Government,  to  be  members  of  our  church 
courts,  and  to  vote  in  all  matters  pertaining  to 
our  doctrine,  our  discipline,  and  our  measures 
for  the  extension  of  the  church.  In  virtue  of 
this  plan.  Congregational  churches  were  ena- 
bled to  exert  no  inconsiderable  influence  in 
deciding  our  course  of  action  in  regard  to  mat- 
ters deemed  of  vital  consequence  to  our  system. 
These  were  the  reasons  why  the  Plan  of  Union' 
as  it  is  usually  called,  was  declared  null  and 
void,  and  why  the  four  Synods,  which  owed 
their  existence  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  to 
this  very  plan  were  declared  to  be  not  Presby- 
terian, and  to  be  out  of  our  connexion.  That  this  i 
is  a  true  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  I 
will  prove  at  once  by  evidence  which  Dr. } 
Breckinridge,  at  least,  will  not  venture  to  im- 
pugn, as  it  is  taken  from  a  circular  letter,  re- 
ported by  Dr.  Bieckinridge  himself,  and  ap- 1 
proved  by  the  Assembly  of  1S37.  j 

"  In  the  course  of  an  attempt  at  reform  we 
have  thought  it  our  duty  to  annul  the  Plan  of 
Union,  between  the  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gational churches  in  new  settlements,  formed 
in  ]  801,  and  evidently  intended  as  a  temporary  i 
system  to  meet  a  temporary  exigency.  By  that  I 
plan  Congregational  churches  were  brought! 
into  comj)lete  union  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ;  and  their  delegates,  without  having 
adopted  our  public  standards,  were  introduced 
into  our  judicatories,  and  vested  with  the  power 
of  giving  authoritative,  and,  in  some  cases, 
decisive  votes  on  most  important  questions  of 
doctrine  and  discipline,  and  thus,  in  reality,  of 
governing  our  church.  And  it  has  happened 
in  fact,  in  a  number  of  instances,  that  some  of 
the  most  important  decisions,  in  their  bearing 
on  the  truth  and  order  of  our  body,  have  been 
decided  by  votes  of  those  who  had  not  sub- 
scribed to  our  ecclesiastical  constitution  and 
stood   aloof    themselves  from    its  authority. 


Thus  Congregationalists  were  found,  in  effect, 
to  control  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  pro- 
hibit her  carrying  into  execution  our  appropriate 
system,  while  we  had  no  more  authority  over 
them  than  they  chose  to  recognise. 

"  If  it  were  obviously  equitable  and  impor- 
tant that  the  Plan  of  Union  alluded  to  should 
be  annulled,  it  was  in  our  view  no  less  equita- 
ble and  important  that  the  ecclesiastical  bodies 
to  which  that  Plan  had  given  existence,  and 
which  were  animated  and  governed  by  its  spirit, 
should  be  declared  to  be  no  longer  connected 
with  our  Church." 

Such  were  the  reasons  assigned  by  Dr. 
Breckinridge  himself,  and  by  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  why  the  Plan  of  Union  was  annulled, 
and  why  the  four  Synods  were  declared  to  be 
no  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  the 
whole  letter,  from  which  the  above  extracts  are 
given,  there  is  not  one  word  about  the  absence 
of  elders  from  the  meetings  of  the  Synods  or  of 
their  Presbyteries: — and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  it  was  more  common  for  the  exscinded 
Presbyteries  to  meet  without  elders  being  pre- 
sent, than  for  the  others  to  do  so.  Drs.  Green 
and  Baxter,  men  as  zealous  acd  as  efficient  in 
the  reform  of  the  Church  as  any  others  in  it, 
did  not  give  as  a  reason  for  the  adoption  of  the 
motion  made  by  them,  in  regard  to  Presbyteries 
composed  in  part  of  pastors  of  Congregational 
churches,  and  made  too  with  the  view  of  com- 
pleting that  reform,  that  no  elders  attended  the 
meetings  of  these  Presbyteries,  which  doubtless 
they  would  have  done,  had  they  understood 
the  resolutions  of  1837,  in  the  sense  now  as- 
signed to  them  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  but  be- 
cause these  pastors  "  had  placed  themselves  in 
a  situation  in  which  the  government  and  order 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  cannot,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  be  fully  carried  into  elfect,  either 
in  relation  to  themselves  or  to  the  people  of 
whom  they  have  charge." 

!      In  the  decision   given  by  the  Assembly  of 
18-13,  there  is  nothing  that  comes  in  conflict 
with  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  of  1837. 
j  The  decisions  of  1 837  had  respect  to  the  com- 
'  position  of  Presbyteries  and  Synods  ;  the  de- 
cision of  1 843  to  the  quorum  of  Presbytery, 


a? 


and  Dr.  Breckinridge  may  quiet  his  fears,  lest, 
if  the  decision  of  1843  stand,  all  his  struggles 
in  1837  should  prove  fruitless.  The  decision 
of  1S43  reaches  not  thus  far.  "  All  my  efforts" 
will  not  be  lost  should  the  decision  of  1843 
stand  as  a  true  declaration  of  what  our  rule 
now  is.  If  Dr.  Breckinridge  would  follow  the 
advice,  "  Let  another  man  praise  thee  and  not 
thine  own  mouth,"  he  would  no  doubt  receive 
all  the  credit  to  which  he  is  entitled,without  him 
telling  us,  on  every  occasion,  what  he  has  done, 
what  he  has  endured,  and  what  he  is  ready  to 
bear.  And  he  should  the  rather  abstain  from 
these  things,  as  it  seems  an  ungracious  task  to 
expose  the  errors  of  a  man  who  is  ready  to  un- 
dergo "the  pains  of  an  incendiary  and  the  pen- 
alties of  a  church  disturber"  in  defence  of  his 
views.  But  why  are  we  told  all  this.-*  Has 
any  one  threatened  Dr.  Breckinridge  for  hold- 
ing the  views  he  does  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject 1  Or  is  it  all  said  for  the  sake  of  exciting 
sympathy  on  the  one  hand  and  prejudice  on 
the  other?  With  the  offensive  style  in  which  he 
has  advanced  his  opinions,  I  doubt  not  many 
have  been  displeased,  for  although  not  as  cen- 
surable as  some  of  the  language  in  his  letters  to 
Ruling  Elders,  yet  it  is  disrespectful  to  the  As- 
sembly whose  decision  he  impugns.  He  hesi- 
tates not  to  charge  men  who,  to  say  the  least, 
are  as  deeply  interested  as  himself  in  the  wel- 
fare of  our  Church,  with  advocating  principles 
and  practices  which  have  a  tendency  to  subvert 
the  liberties  of  the  Church,  to  degrade  the 
Eldership,  and  to  establish  a  hierarchy. 

The  assertion  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  that  the 
last  Assembly  decided  that  ministers  were  not 
members  of  the  Church  is  any  thing  but  a  cor- 
rect representation  of  the  fact.  The  Presbyte- 
ry of  Miami  submitted  to  the  Assembly  an 
overture,  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  ofi 
which  was — Are  pastors  and  stated  supplies  to 
be  considered  members  of  the  individual 
churches  which  they  serve,  and  to  be  enrolled 
on  the  sessional  records  ?  I  do  not  say,  that 
another  construction  cannot  be  given  to  the 
words  "  church  members"  which  occur  in  the 
first  clause  of  the  overture  ;  but  who  can  sup- 
pose the   Presbytery   of  Miami,  or  any  other 


Presbytery  in  the  land,  to  be  guilty  of  the  folly 
of  asking  whether  ministers  were  members  of 
the  Church  at  large?  Or  who  can  doubt,  that 
in  using  the  phrase  church  members,  in  the 
first  clause  of  the  overture,  they  intended  to  in- 
quire whether  pastors  and  stated  supplies  were 
to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  individual 
churches  in  which  they  ministered  ?  The 
words  of  the  overture  are  "  Whether  ordained 
ministers  of  the  gospel  ought  not  to  be  consi- 
dered church  members,  and  to  have  their  names 
enrolled  on  the  sessional  records  of  the  church 
where  they  are  settled  as  pastors  or  stated  sup- 
plies !"  The  latter  clause  is  evidently  exege- 
tical  of  the  first,  and  the  whole  overture  con- 
tains but  one  inquiry,  viz.  Whether  pastors 
and  stated  supplies  are  to  be  entered  as  mem- 
bers upon  the  sessional  records  of  the  particu- 
lar churches  which  they  serve  ?  Yet  Dr. 
Breckinridge  would  make  the  reader  believe, 
that  the  Assembly  decided  that  the  Church  is 
to  be  governed  by  ministers  "  in  effect  irre- 
sponsible, connected  with  the  church  only  by 
an  undefined  dominion  over  it,  not  being  even 
members  of  it." 

This  is  but  a  specimen  of  the  candour  with 
which  Dr.  Breckinridge  treats  the  last  Assem- 
bly, against  which  he  seems  to  be  strongi)'  em- 
bittered— of  the  probable  reasons  for  which  I 
shall  not  now  at  least  venture  to  express  an 
opinion 


IX. 


jyiarch  1 6. 
J\Ir.  Editor — The  argument  in  favour  of  the 
decision  of  the  last  Assembly  respecting  the 
quorum  of  Presbytery,  derived  from  the  prac- 
tice of  our  oldest  Presbyteries,  both  before  and 
after  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  in  1788, 
has  been  so  fully  and  ably  presented  by  your- 
self and  the  Rev.  William  M.  Hall,  that  I  have 
abstained  from  dwelling  upon  it,  in  my  com- 
munications already  published  in  the  Presby- 
terian. I  now  advert  to  the  subject  to  meet 
one  or  two  objections  to  this  argument.  The 
first  of  these  is,  that  a  practice  even  long  con- 


28 


tinued  is  not  conclusive  as  to  the  import  of  the 
rule,  under  which  the  practice  has  risen.  This 
is  readily  granted,  and,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
the  practice  in  question  has  not  been  referred 
to,  for  the  purpose  of  showini);  what  is  the  ex- 
act import  of  tiio  terms  of  the  rule,  but  with 
the  view  of  letting  it  be  seen,  what  construc- 
tion was  given  to  it  by  those  who  framed  and 
adopted  the  rule,  and  who  were  first  called 
upon  to  act  under  its  provisions.  For  this 
purpose  it  is  of  great  avail,  as  it  must  settle, 
especially  if  the  practice  be  uniform,  what  was 
understood  to  be  its  meaning  in  the  judgment 
of  those,  who  may  safely  be  regarded  as  the 
best  judges  of  the  design  of  the  rule,  whether 
that  design  be  clearly  expressed  or  not. 

If  the  uniform  practice  be  found  to  accord 
best  with  the  plain  meaning  of  the  terms,  the 
argument  is  irrefragable,  that  conformity  to  the 
practice  is  conformity  to  the  rule  ;  and  in  case 
the  terms  are  ambiguous,  and  yet  will  fairly 
admit  of  a  construction  in  accordance  with  the 
practice  of  those  who  from  their  very  position 
must  be  supposed  to  understand  the  design  of 
the  rule,  if  any  do;  it  is  to  be  presumed,  that 
the  practice  is  not  at  variance  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  rule,  and  may  be  followed  with 
safety.  So  strong  indeed  is  this  presumption 
rendered  by  the  absence  of  all  complaint 
against  the  practice  itself,  that  it  has  almost 
the  force  of  direct  evidence,  that  the  practice 
and  the  rule  agree. 

2.  To  show  that  no  dependence  is  to  be 
placed  upon  the  practice  of  our  older  Presby- 
teries, reference  is  made  to  the  Plan  of  Union, 
which  was  permitted  to  exist,  for  moie  than 
thirty  years,  and  which  was  formed  with  the 
concurrence  and  active  labours  of  some  who 
took  part  in  framing  the  constitution  of  our 
Church  ;  and  yet  after  so  many  years  this  very 
plan  was  declared  to  he  null  and  void,  as  being 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution. 
But  between  these  two  cases,  it  will  readily 
bo  perceived  that  there  is  a  great  dillerence. 
For  the  one  provision  was  made  in  the  consti- 
tution at  the  time  of  its  adoption.  It  was  a 
matter  in  regard  to  which  all  the  Presbyteries 
would  be  constantly  called  upon  to  act,  and 


with  which  they  were  familiar  before  the  con- 
stitution was  adopted.  It  was  no  new  sub- 
ject to  them,  and  it  was  usual  for  them  to  con- 
sider a  given  number  of  ministers,  met  accor- 
ding to  appointment,  as  a  quorum  of  Presby- 
tery :  and  if  it  was  the  design  of  those  who 
made  the  constitution,  to  change  the  practice, 
would  not  this  purpose  have  been  more  clearly 
expressed,  and  no  room  left  for  doubt  on  this 
point  1  In  the  whole  constitution  a  rule  could 
scarcely  be  named  in  regard  to  the  design  of 
wliich  the  Presbyteries  in  existence  in  1788 
would  be  less  likely  to  fall  into  error,  than  with 
respect  to  this  very  rule  relative  to  a  quorum 
of  Presbytery.  And  the  uniformity  of  the 
practice  is  conclusive  as  to  the  design  of  the 
rule,  whatever  may  be  the  fact  in  regard  to  its 
import. 

With  respect  to  the  Plan  of  TTnion  the  case 
is  altogether  different.  No  such  plan  was 
thought  of  when  the  constitution  was  ratified 
and  adopted.  No  provision  was  made  for  any 
case  analogous  to  it.  It  grew  out  of  a  lauda- 
ble desire  to  enable  Christian  brethren  of  two 
different  denominations,  who  agreed  in  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  who  were 
few  in  number  and  feeble  in  resources,  by  a 
temporary  union  of  their  strength,  to  sustain 
among  them  the  regular  ministrations  of  the 
gospel,  until  they  should  be  brought  to  embrace 
one  system  of  government,  or  be  able  sepa- 
rately to  make  adequate  provision  for  the  due 
maintenance  of  their  religious  teachers.  It  is 
therefore  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that,  in  a  mat- 
ter of  this  kind,  the  General  Assembly  of  1  SO  1 , 
not  foreseeing  the  evil  winch  eventually  arose 
from  the  plan,  and  regarding  the  whole  as  a 
mere  temporary  arrangement,  and  as  confined 
in  its  operation  to  the  churches  in  the  new  set- 
tlements, should  have  felt  itself  authorized  to 
enter  into  such  an  arrangement,  under  that 
provision  in  the  constitution,  which  clothes 
the  Asscmbl)'^  with  power  to  determine  the 
terms  of  correspondence  with  other  religious 
denominations,  nor  is  it  a  matter  for  surprise, 
that  before  the  evils  of  this  arrangement  had 
developed  themselves,  the  provisions  of  tho 
plan  were  extended,  and  for  many  years  littlo 


29 


or  no  attention  was  given  to  the  scheme. — 
Confined  in  its  operation  to  the  extreme  limits 
of  our  Church,  where  but  few,  to  speak  coin- 
piuatively,  of  the  more  rigid  adherents  to  Prcs- 
byterianism  were  to  be  found,  the  Plan  of  Un- 
ion failed  for  a  long  time  to  attract  to  itself  the 
attention  of  the  older  Presbyteries  in  our 
Church,  and  especially  of  those  which  existed 
prior  to  the  formation  of  the  first  General  As- 
sembly. Fifteen  years  ago,  I  am  confident 
that  not  only  many  of  the  ministers  of  our 
Church,  but  even  some  whole  Presbyteriesi 
were  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  ;  the  operation  of  which  was  almost 
wholly  confined  to  the  Synods  in  northern 
and  western  New  York,  and  in  the  Western 
Reserve,  Ohio.  What  propriety  is  there  then 
in  comparing  the  toleration  of  this  unconstitu- 
tional arrangement,  with  a  practice  contin- 
ued from  a  period  antecedent  to  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution  to  the  present  day,  and  in 
reference  to  a  matter  which  was  made  the  sub- 
ject of  a  special  provision  in  the  constitution, 
the  design  of  which  provision,  whatever  be 
its  import,  was  to  perpetuate  the  existing  cus- 
tom? 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  the  Plan  of 
Union  could  not  show  the  design  of  those  who 
framed  the  rules  in  our  constitution,  in  confer- 
ring upon  the  General  Assembly  power  to  regu- 
late all  correspondence  with  foreign  bodies,  for 
no  such  thing  as  the  Plan  of  Union  was  thought 
of ;  but  with  respect  to  the  design  of  the  rule 
concerning  the  quorum  of  Presbytery,  the  uni- 
form practice  of  the  Presbyteries  coeval  with 
the  constitution  itself,  does  show,  and  that  most 
clearly,  the  intent  of  the  rule.  And  here  by 
the  way  I  observe  that  a  similar  remark  may 
be  made  with  respect  to  the  rule  which  speaks 
of  the  imposition  of  hands,  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers.  It  was  left  to  the  discoverers  of  the 
present  day  to  find  out  a  hidden  meaning  in 
these  rules  which  had  escaped  the  notice  of 
our  fathers,  and  of  the  meaner  minds  of  our 
own  times. 

I  have  in  my  possession  a  statement  of  the 
meetings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Castle, 
from  1717  to  1791,  at  which  no  Ruling  Elders 


were  present.  This  statement  was  kindly 
furnished  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Du  Bois,  Clerk  of 
the  Presbytery,  at  the  request  of  a  friend  to 
whom  I  had  written  on  the  subject,  asking 
him  to  examine  the  records  of  that  Presbytery 
for  me.  I  hope  to  obtain  like  statements  from 
the  Clerks  of  several  other  Presbyteries,  and 
in  case  I  do,  I  will  send  them  to  you  for  inser- 
tion in  the  Piesbyterian. 


X. 


April  6. 

J\Ir.  Editor — That  those  who  take  an  inte- 
rest in  the  discussion  of  the  Quorum  Ques- 
tion, may  have  a  connected  view  of  all  the 
matters  handled  in  my  letters  on  the  subject,  I 
propose  to  give,  in  this  communication,  an 
outline  of  the  evidence  and  argument  present- 
ed in  favour  of  the  decision  of  the  last  Assem- 
bly. For  a  full  discussion  of  the  several  points 
involved,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  my  pre- 
vious communications. 

The  rule,  the  right  interpretation  of  which 
is  the  matter  in  controversy,  is  in  these  words  : 
"  Any  three  ministers,  and  as  many  elders  as 
may  be  present,  belonging  to  the  Presbytery, 
shall  be  a  quorum  competent  to  proceed  to 
business."  See  Form  of  Government,  ch.  x^ 
sec.  7, 

Under  this  rule,  can  three  ministers  form  a 
quorum  ?  This  question  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1843  decided  in  the  aflirniative.  That 
the  answer  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  the  rule,  I  maintain  for  the  following 
reasons : 

1.  It  agrees  with  the  plain  meaning  of  tha 
words. 

Those  words  which  relate  to  the  ministers 
suppose  three  ministers  to  be  present;  but 
with  respect  to  the  presence  of  the  elders,  the 
form  of  expression  is  conditional,  and  the 
words  imply  only  the  possibility  that  one  or 
more  elders  may  be  present,  and  by  conse- 
quence that  one  and  all  may  be  absent.  The 
affirmation  that  the  elders  shall  be  a  part  of 
the  quorum,  rests  upon  the  condition  that  they 


30 


are  present ;  and  if  this  condition  be  wanting, 
they  constitute  no  part  of  the  quorum.  No 
conceivable  reason  can  be  suggested,  for  em- 
ploying a  conditional  form  of  expression,  on 
the  supposition,  that  it  was  the  design  of  those 
who  framed  the  rule  to  require  that,  in  eveiy 
case,  one  or  more  elders  should  be  present. 
Had  this  been  their  design,  the  most  simple 
and  natural  course  would  have  been  to  say, 
"  Any  three  ministers  and  one  or  more  elders 
belonging  to  the  Presbytery,  being  met  at  the 
time  and  place  appointed,  shall  be  a  quorum 
competent  to  proceed  to  business."  Had  the 
rule  been  expressed  in  these  words,  could  it 
have  the  meaning  it  now  has  ? 

In  case  any  elders  be  present,  be  they  few  or 
many,  the  rule  provides,  that  they  shall  all  be 
associated  with  the  ministers  in  making  a  quo- 
rum :  and  although  this  might  in  the  opinion 
of  some  be  con?idcied  as  sufficiently  provided 
for  in  the  definition  of  a  Presbytery,  yet  it  was 
wise  to  put  this  matter  beyond  dispute  by  a 
specific  provision;  and  the  more  so,  as  we  learn, 
from  Steuart  of  Pardovan,  that  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  it  was  a  contested  point,  and  that 
there  were  those  who  were  opposed  to  the  elders 
out-numbering  the  ministers  in  the  Church 
Courts.  See  the  Presbyterian  for  February 
24,  1844. 

2.  The  answer  given  by  the  Assembly  ac- 
cords with  the  practice  of  our  Church,  from  its 
first  existence  as  a  Presbytery,  in  1705,  to  the 
present  day.  There  is  no  record  to  show  that 
the  propriety  of  the  practice  was  ever  called  in 
question.  Tradition  has  not  handed  down  the 
name  of  a  single  objector.  Under  the  constitu" 
tion  of  1788,  the  practice  remained  the  same  it 
ever  had  been.  In  the  absence  of  the  elders, 
the  ministers  continued  to  form  a  quorum  for 
business.  No  protest — no  complaint,  Our 
fathers  were  all  well  satisfied  with  the  prac- 
tice and  with  the  rule,  between  which  they 
discovered  no  discrepancy.  Had  it  been  the 
design  of  the  rule  to  change  the  practice,  could 
the  facts  here  mentioned  have  occurred  ?  See 
Presbyterian    for  March    15,  1844. 

3.  The  practice  in  our  own  church  agrees 
with  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  ycotland. 


Although  this  fact  is  no  proof  that  the  last  As- 
sembly gave  a  just  interpretation  to  the  rule  in 
chap.  X.  sec.  7.,  yet  it  is  of  avail  to  show  that 
the  interpretation  given  to  it  is  not  m  conflict 
with  the  principles  of  Presbyterian  Govern- 
ment. Steuart  of  Pardovan,  speaking  of  Pres- 
bytery, tells  us  "  that  the  Directory  for  Gov- 
ernment saith  that  to  perform  any  classical  act 
of  government  or  ordination,  there  shallbepre- 
sent  at  least  a  major  part  of  the  ministers  of  the 
classis  (Presbytery.)"  Not  one  word  respect- 
ing the  necessity  of  a  ruling  elder  being  pre-  , 
sent.  In  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  the  pre- 
sent day  three  ministers  can  make  a  quorum  of 
Presbytery. 

At  the  Assembly  of  1582,  of  which  Andrew 
Melville  was  moderator,  the  following  acts,  as 
we  learn  from  Calderwood,  were  passed  in  re- 
ference to  "  Presbyterial  meetings."  "  Con- 
cerning such  Elders  as  labour  not  in  the  word, 
their  resort  to|the  Presbytery  shall  be  no  further 
urged  strictly,  than  the  weighliness  and  the  oc- 
casion, uporu  intimation  and  advertisement 
made  by  the  Pastors  and  Doctors,  shall  require; 
at  which  time  they  shall  give  their  concurrence; 
yet  such  as  may  conveniently  resort  are  ex- 
horted to  be  present  at  all  times.  Such  of  the 
ministry  as  do  not  resort  to  the  exercise  and 
Presbytery,  shall  be  subject  to  the  penalty  ar- 
bitrary, which  shall  be  appointed  at  the  discre- 
tion of  every  particular  Presbytery."  From 
this  it  is  evident  that  in  time  of  Melville,  the 
attendance  of  the  Elders  upon  the  meetings  of 
Presbytery,  was,  for  the  most  part,  if  not  al- 
ways, optional ;  while  the  ministers  were  re- 
quired to  be  present,  and  were  liable  to  censure 
in  case  of  neglect.  This  rule  was  renewed  by 
the  Assembly  of  1G33,  of  which  Alexander 
Henderson  was  moderator,  and  was  in  forco 
for  some  lime  after  the  revolution  of  16SS,  as 
appears  from  Steuart,  who  speaks  of  the  rule  as 
yet  in  exislencc.  Wc.  read  of  no  censure  in- 
flicted upon  the  elders  in  case  of  their  absence. 
As  under  our  own  rules,  the  ministers  were 
required  to  attend,  the  elders  were  at  liberty  to 
attend.  When  present,  the  elders  made  a  part 
of  the  quorum,  even  if  they  out-numbered  the 
minbters.     See  Steuart,  I.   IG,  ;5.     When  the 


31 


elders  were  all  absent,  the  ministers  if  present 
in  sufficient  numbers  made  a  quorum.  Sec 
the  authorities  above  cited,  and  the  Presbyte- 
rian for  February  10,  1844. 

4.  The  practice  of  other  bodies  composed  of 
two  distinct  classes  of  persons.     The  House  of 
liOrds  in  Britain  consists  of  the  lords  spiritual 
and  temporal,  and  yet,   for  the  transaction  of 
the  ordinary  business  of  the  House,  three  tem-  { 
poral   lords   constitute  a  quorum  ;  and   in  the 
opinion  of  Edward  Christian,  Esq.,  the  learned 
annotator  on  Blackstone,  the  spiritual  lords  are 
competent   to  discharge  the  ordinary  business  [ 
of  the  body,  in  the  absence  of  all  the  temporal  i 
lords.     With  this  high  authority  furnished  by 
the  practice  of  the  highest  civil  court    and  de- 
liberative Assembly  in  all  Britain,  agrees  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  not 
only   in  her  Presbyterial,  but  also  in  her  Sy- 
nodical   and   General  Assemblies,   and  in   the 
commissions   of  the  General  Assembly.     See  i 
the  Presbyterian  for  February  3,  and  10,  and 
for  March  2,  1844.  j 

5.  Any  fourteen  or  more  ministers  may 
form  a  quorum  of  our  General  Assembly 
though  there  be  not  an  elder  present.  See 
chap.  xii.  sec.  3.  This  fiict  though  no  proof 
that,  under  the  rule  in  the  case,  there  can  be 
a  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  the  absence  of  all 
the  elders,  yet  is  conclusive  as  to  this  point, 
that  the  presence  of  both  ministers  and  elders 
is  not  essential  to  a  quorum  of  a  body  consist- 
ing of  these  two  classes  of  church  officers  ; 
and  of  course  it  subverts  the  main  objection  to 
the  interpretation  given  by  the  last  Assembly 
to  the  rule  respecting  the  quorum  of  Presby- 
tery. See  the  Presbyterian  for  February  17, 
1844. 

6.  In  certain  given  cases,  the  elders  alone 
can  form  a  quorum  of  Church  Sessions.  See 
chap.  ix.  sec.  3,  4.  This  fact  also  shows  con- 
clusively, that  the  presence  of  both  ministers 
and  elders  is  not  essential  to  a  quorum  of  each 
and  all  of  our  church  courts,  because  they  con- 
sist of  both  ministers  and  elders.  See  Presby- 
terian for  February   17,  1844. 

If  then  the  answer  given  by  the  last  Genei  - 


al  Assembly  is  sustained  by  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  words  in  which  the  rule  is  expressed,  by 
the  practice  of  our  own  Church  from  its  first 
existence  to  the  present  time,  by  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  by  the  prac- 
tice of  other  bodies  similarly  composed,  by  our 
own  rule  respecting  a  quorum  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  also  by  the  rule  in  regard  to  the 
quorum  of  a  church  session  :  can  more  evi- 
dence be  needed,  that  under  the  rule  given  in 
chapter  x,  sec.  7,  three  ministers  may  be  a  quo- 
rum of  Presbytery  ? 

Against  the  decision  in  question  the  follow- 
ing objections  have  been  urged  : 

1.  That  the  Church  is   to  be  governed  by 
Congregational,  Classical,  Synodical,  and  Ge- 
neral Assemblies,  composed  of  ministers  and 
ruling  elders.    But  this  is  maintained  as  strenu- 
ously by  those  who  approve,  as  by  those  who 
oppose,  the  decision  of  the  Assembly;  and  it 
has  nothing  to  do  with  determining  the  ques- 
tion, whether  ministers  alone  may  form  a  quo- 
rum of  a  church  court.     Were  there  no  express 
law  on   the  subject,  nor  usage,  to  determine, 
how  many  and  what  persons  shall  constitute  a 
quorum  of  Presbytery  ;  "  the  law  of  common 
j  sense  and  of  the  common  practice  of  delibera- 
I  tive  bodies,"  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge, would    decide  that  a  quorum  must  be 
I  composed  of  a  majority  of  all  the  members. — 
And  then  in  case  the  elders  present  were  a 
majority  of  all  the  members,  and  were  compe- 
tent to  the  proper   discharge  of  all  the   duties 
assigned   to  the  Presbytery,  ihcy  would  be  a 
\  quorum,  though  not  a  minister  were  present; 
I  and  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  absence  of  the 
I  elders,  the   ministers  present,  if  a  majority  of 
I  the  whole  number  belonging  to  the  body,  would 
be  a  quorum. 

2.  That  it  is  an  adjudicated  case,  that  there 

j  can  be  no  lawful  meeting  of  a  church   court 

unless  one  or  more  elders  be  present ;  and  that 

the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly  is  completely 

aside  from  the  whole  current  of  decisions. 

"  According  to  the  settled  law  of  the  Scottish 
Church,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  every 
church  court,  in  which  ruling  elders  do  not  sit 


32 


is  illegal,  and  all  its  acts  aro  null."  That  this 
is  not  the  case,  is  abundant'y  evident,  from 
what  was  said  above  respecting  the  law  and 
practice  of  this  Church. 

3  The  commission  to  attend  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  was  composed  of  ministers  and 
elders.  Upon  this  Dr.  Breckinridge  lays  much 
stress,  but  from  some  cause  or  other  he  omits 
to  mention,  that  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
act  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1643 
confirming  the  appointment  of  the  General 
Commission,  "  Any  three  of  them  whereof  two 
shall  be  ministers"were  a  quorum  of  the  com- 
mission ;  and  also  another  fact  of  much  im- 
portance mentioned  by  his  own  authority, 
Baillie,  that  at  one  time  the  commission  or  its 
quorum  consisted  of  Rutherford,  Gillespie,  and 
Baillie,  all  three  ministers.  In  stating  the 
number  requisite  to  a  quorum,  Baillie  makes 
no  mention  of  the  limitation  that  two  at  least 
of  the  three  must  be  ministers,  and  this  omis- 
sion led  me,  in  my  remarks  on  this  point,  to 
say  that  the  three  elders  could  have  been  a 
quorum. 

4.  The  four  exscinded  Synods,  their  Pres- 
byteries, and  their  churches,  were  declared  to 
be  not  Presbyterian,  mainly  upon  the  points 
involved  in  this  question  respecting  a  quorum 
of  Presbytery. 

To  sustain  this  objection.  Dr.  Breckinridge 
cannot  adduce  a  particle  of  evidence  from  any 


of  the  Acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  or  from 
any  paper  approved  by  that  body. 

The  reason  assigned  for  annulling  the  Plan 
of  Union,  and  for  declaring  the  four  Synods  no 
part  of  the  Prcsbj  terian  Church  was,  that  in 
virtue  of  this  plan,  the  Congregationalists  con- 
nected with  these  Synods  were  enabled  to  in- 
terfere with  our  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  in 
some  cases  had  actually  done  so. 

In  this  communication  I  have  presented  the 
proposed  outline  of  the  argument  in  favour  of 
the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly  respecting 
the  quorum  of  Presbytery ;  also  an  outline  of 
the  principal  objections  to  that  decision  :  and 
although  my  communications  may  have  proved 
as  tiresome  to  the  reader  as  to  myself,  I  indulge 
the  hope  that  they  will  in  some  degree  sub- 
serve the  interests  of  the  Church. 

As  to  the  question  whether  it  is  expedient 
or  inexpedient  to  alter  the  rule,  I  have  no  zeal 
whatever ;  and  for  one  I  am  perfectly  willing 
to  yield  in  this  matter  to  the  wishes  of  even  a 
minority,  deeming  it  in  itself  a  question  of  but 
little  moment,  and  important  only  bectuse  it 
has  been  laid  hold  of  as  the  occasion  for  a  vio- 
lent assault  upon  the  last  Assembly,  and  for 
denouncing  that  body  in  no  very  measured 
terms,  as  countenanciiig  views  which  have  a 
tendency  to  establish  a  hierarchy,  to  degrade 
the  eldership  and  to  destroy  the  liberties  of  the 
church. 


33 


IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS. 


No.  XL 

Jjjril  13. 
In  this  communication  I  shall  enter  upon  an 
examination  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  argument 
to  prove  that  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly, 
respecting  the  imposition  of  hands,  is  contrary 
to  the  Constitution  of  our  church.  What 
was  that  decision  1  In  reply  to  an  overture 
from  the  West  Lexington  Presbyteiy,  the  As- 
sembly adopted  the  following  minute  :  •'  Re- 
solved, That  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  that  neither  the  constitution  nor 
the  practice  of  our  church  authorizes  Ruling 
Elders  to  impose  hands  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers." 

The  first  reason  assigned  bj"-  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge for  seeking  to  have  this  judgment  set 
aside  is  this.  That  by  the  Constitution,  the 
power  of  ordaining  ministers  is  lodged  in  the 
Presbytery,  and  that  the  Presbytery  consists 
of  ministers  and  ruling  elders. 

"  Where,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  is  the 
power  of  ordaining  ministers  of  the  word 
lodged  under  our  constitution  1  '  The  Pres- 
bytery has  power  ...  to  ordain,  install,  re- 
move and  judge  ministers,  (Form  of  Govern- 
ment, ch.  X.  sec.  8.)  What  Presbytery  !  Why, 
sir,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  Presbytery  which  is 

.  .  .  .  declared  to  consist  of  ministers 
and  ruling  elders.  (Ch.  x.  sec.  1,2.)"  But 
why  did  not  Dr.  Breckinridge,  in  this  reference 
to  the  Form  of  Government,  give  us  the  very 
words  of  the  sections  referred  to  1  Would  an 
exact  quotation  spoil  his  argument?  After 
setting  forth  "the  importance  and  usefulness  of 
presbyterial  and  s)'nodicaI  assemblies,"it  is  said, 
"  A  Presbytery  consists  of  all  the  ministers, 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation 
within  a  certain  district."  And  let  the  reader 
bear  this  in  mind,  when  Dr.  Breckinridge  asks, 
"  Why,  sir,  would  you  stultify  our  fathers  1 
JDid  Uiey  first  define  with  the  utmost  clearness 


the  term  Presbytery,  then  invest  the  bsdy  so 
called  with  the  power  of  ordaining  ministers 
of  the  word  ;  then  in  a  long  chapter,  treating 
of  this  ordination  in  detail,  use  the  word  a  do- 
zen times  in  its  defined  sense,  and  then  with- 
out notice  or  motive,  use  the  same  word  in 
the  same  chapter,  and  touching  the  same  busi- 
ness, in  a  sense  not  only  inconsistent  with 
their  definition  of  it,  and  their  constant  use  of 
it,  but  in  a  sense  flatly  contrary  to  both  1  The 
tiding  is  supremely  absurd."  From  this  it  is 
evident  that  Dr.  Breckinridge  maintains  that 
the  framers  of  our  constitution  always  use  the 
term  Presbytery  in  the  sense  assigned  to  it  in 
ch  X.  2,  and  that  to  deny  this  is  to  stultify 
our  fathers,  and  is  also  perfectly  absurd.  Be 
it  so  then:  and  of  course  no  man  can  be  or- 
dained except  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery,  that  is,  "  of  all  ministers 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation 
within  a  certain  district."  This,  according  to 
Dr.  Breckinridge's  logic,  must  be  the  case,  for 
the  framers  of  the  constitution  according  to 
his  own  showing  always  use  the  term  Presby- 
tery agreeably  to  the  above  definition.  Upon 
this  construction  of  the  rule,  how  many  regu- 
larly ordained  ministers  are  there  in  the  whole 
Presbyterian  church  1  Is  there  one  }  If  not, 
how  "supremely  absurd"  is  Dr.  Breckinridge's 
gratuitous  assumption  that  in  the  chapter  on  or- 
dination the  teim Presbytery  is  constantly  used 
in  its  defined  sense  as  given  in  ch.  x.  sec,  2., 
which  defines  merely  how  many  and  what 
persons  may  be  members  of  a  Presbytery. 

The  same  mistake  is  made  in  this  part  of 
his  argument  that  pervades  his  whole  speech 
on  the  quorum  question  ;  viz.,  because  a  Pres- 
bytery is  said,  in  our  Form  of  Government,  to 
consist  of  all  the  ministers,  and  one  ruling  elder 
from  each  congregation  within  a  certain  district, 
he  assumes  that  the  ministers  alone  can  never 
in  any  case  be  spoken  of  as  a  Presbytery.     But 


34 


what  is  a  Presbjtery  ?  It  is  nothing  more  or 
less  than  a  body  of  presbyters  regularly  asso- 
ciated,  and    invested    with   certain    powers. 


tery,  than  the  absence  of  sundry  ministers  and 
elders  belonging  ro  the  Presbyter}'  proves  that 
it  is  not  the  act  of  the  Presbytery.     The  ar- 


This  is  the  simplest  and  at  the  same  time  the  j  gument  of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  that  the   laying 


most  comprehensive  definition  of  the  term. 
It  includes  the  parochial,  the  classical,  the  sy- 
nodical,  and  the  general  assemblies,  all  of 
which  are  bodies  of  presbyters  regularly  asso- 
ciated, and  invested  with  cettain  powers.  The 
first  of  these  may  be  constituted  for  business 
of  elders  alone,  the  others  of  ministers  alone, 
when  thus  conslituted  they  are  nevertheless 
and  undeniably  bodies  of  presbyters.  But  it 
is  the  classical  presbytery  only  to  which  the 
present  discussion  has  respect,  and  which,  in 
our  standards  and  in  popular  language,  is 
spoken  of  as  the  Presbytery.  According  to 
ch.  X.  sec.  2,  of  our  Form  of  Government  this 
body  of  presbyters  "  consists  of  all  the  minis- 
ters and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congrega- 
tion within  a  certain  district."  This  section, 
as  already  observed,  merely  points  out  all  who 
belong  to  the  body  and  have  a  right  to  take 
part  in  its  proceedings ;  and  determines  nothing 
as  to  the  fact  whether  the  ministers  alone  are 
ever  spoken  of  as  the  Presbytery. 

Had  Dr.  Breckinridge  said  that  the  framers 
of  our  constitution  constantly  used  the  term 
Presbytery  to  denote  the  same  body  of  pres- 
byters, he  would  have  stated  the  fact  precisely 
as  it  is.  For  it  is  the  same  body,  whether,  at 
any  given  meeting,  or  upon  any  given  occa- 
sion,  "  all  the  ministers  and  one  luling  elder 
from  each  congregation  within  a  certain  dis- 
trict" be  present ;  or  only  a  quorum,  or  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  these  presbyters  to  proceed 
to  business,  though  those  present  should  not 
be  a  tithe  of  the  whole  number  belonging  to 
the  body. 

Again,  it  is  the  same  body,  when  the  minis- 


on  of  the  hands  of  the  ministers  is  not  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  to  make 
jt  valid,  requires  two  assumptions,  1.  that  there 
can  be  no  meeting  of  Presbytery  without  both 
ministers  and  elders  being  present,  and  2.  that 
nothing  can  be  said  to  be  done  by  the  Presby- 
tery unless  both  ministers  and  elders  take  part 
in  the  doing  of  it,  as  well  as  in  deciding  that 
it  shall  be  done.  His  mode  of  sustaining  the 
first  of  these  assumptions  involves  the  absurdi- 
ty, that  there  can  be  no  meeting  of  Presbytery 
unless  all  who  belong  to  it  be  present :  not  in- 
deed that  Dr.  Breckinridge  admits  this  to  be 
the  case,  yet  it  is  the  legitimate  inference  from 
his  position  that  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
constantly  uso  the  term  Presbytery  in  the 
sense  defined  in  ch.  x.  2.  "  A  Presbytery 
consists  of  all  the  ministers  and  one  ruling  el- 
der from  each  congregation  within  a  certain 
district."  Without  the  second  assumption  he 
could  not  for  a  moment  take  the  ground  that 
in  the  phrase,  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery,"  the  term  Presbytery  must 
mean  both  ministers  and  elders.  The  form  of 
government  agreed  upon  by  the  Westminster 
Assembly  says  "  Ordination  is  the  act  of  a 
Presbytery,"  it  also  says,  "The  Presbytery.  . 
.  .  .  shall  solemnly  set  him  (i.  e.  the  can- 
didate,) apart  to  the  office  and  work  of  the  min- 
istry, by  laying  their  hands  on  him."  And  yet 
again  it  says,  "  Every  minister  of  the  word  is  to 
be  ordained  by  imposition  of  bands  and  prayer, 
with  fasting,  by  those  preaching  elders  to  whom 
it  doth  belong."  The  Presbytery  of  this  Form 
of  Government,  from  which  our  own  is  chiefly 
derived,  consists  of  ministers  and  ruling  elders, 


ters  alone,  in  the  presence,  and  with  the  con-   and  yet  while  by  this  Form  of  Government 


currence  of  the  ruling  elders,  solemnly  declare, 
by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands  upon  the  head 
of  a  candidate  for  the  holy  ministry,  that  such 
candidate  is  set  apart  to  this  sacred  office.  The 
fact  that  ruling  ciders  take  no  part  in  this  cer- 
emony of  imposing  hands,  no  more  proves 
that  the  act  itself  is  not  (he  act  of  the  Presby- 


the  imposition  of  hands  is  in  express  terms 
limited  to  preaching  elders,  it  is  also  said  in 
express  terms  "  the  Presbytery  or  the  minis- 
ters sent  for  the  purpose,  shall  lay  their  hands 
on  the  candidate  to  be  ordained,"  and  moreover 
ordination  itself,  of  which  the  imposition  of 
hands  is  one  of  the  ceremonies,  is  called  "  the 


35 


act  of  a  Presbytery."  In  these  passages  does 
the  term  Presbytery  denote  different  bodies  or 
the  same  body  ?  If  the  same  body,  then  we 
may  safely  admit  tliat  throughout  the  whole 
chapter  on  ordination,  in  our  own  formulary, 
the  term  "Presbytery"  always  means  the  same 
body,  and  yet  be  able  to  maintain  that  "  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  is 
to  be  confined  to  the  ministers,  acting  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  ruling  elders  who  may  be 
present.  Calderwood,  in  his  "  Altare  Damas- 
cenum"  a  standard  work  in  the  Scotch  Church, 
and  a  work  written  in  defence  of  Presbyterian 
government,  and  published  in  1623,  says, 
"  For  the  imposition  of  hands  can  be  called 
the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery, 
although  all  and  each  in  the  Presbytery  have 
not  the  power  of  imposing  hands."  Steuart 
of  Pardovan  says,  "  Ordination  is  the  solemn 
act  of  the  Presbytery,  setting  apart  a  person 
to  some  church  office."  Again  he  says,  "  A 
Presbytery  consists  of  all  the  pastors  within 
the  bounds  and  one  ruling  elder  from  each 
parish  therein."  And  in  the  usual  or  pre- 
scribed form  for  recording  the  ordination,  these 
words  occur,  "  the  said  Presbytery  did  deter- 
mine to  meet  at  the  Kirk  of  ...  .  the 
brethren  met  presbyterially,  taking  the  whole 
matter  to  consideration,  as  said  is,  did  then  and 
there,  in  due  order  and  with  all  requisite  for- 
malities, solemnly  ordain,  admit  and  set  apart, 
by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer,  the  said 

Mr.  ."     Who  ordained  the  candidate  by 

the  imposition  of  hands  i*  the  Presbytery.  And 
is  this  the  same  Presbytery  before  which  he 
underwent  his  trials  for  ordination,  and  by 
which  he  is  adjudged  to  be  qualified  to  be  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  ?  Yes,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion. Then  it  follows  that  "  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  ministers  is  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  for  beyond  all 
possibiUty  of  disputing  the  fact,  the  ministers 
alone,  according  to  Steuart,  or  rather  accord- 
ing to  the  law  and  practice  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  as  stated  by  Steuart,  imposed  hands. 
(See  Steuart,  1. 124.) 

So  then  we  see  that  it  was  not  without  mo- 
tive the  framers  of  our  constitution  introduced 


into  the  Directory  for  Ordination,  the  words, 
"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbyte- 
ry," understanding  thereby  the  hands  of  the 
ministers,  who  acting  together,  in  the  perform- 
ance of  ministerial  and  doing  so  by  order  of 
the  entire  Presbytery,  are  to  be  accounted 
for  the  occasion  the  Presbytery, 

With  respect  to  the  person  to  be  ordained. 
Dr.  Breckinridge  asks  and  answers  the  ques- 
tion. "Who  shall  ordain  him?  ^  The  pre- 
siding minister,'  in  the  name,  by  the  authority 
with  the  concurrence,  in  the  bosom  of  the  con- 
stituted Presbytery,  as  its  moderator — and  not 
otherwise."  Be  it  so;  that  ordination  by  the 
presiding  minister  is  ordination  by  the  Pres- 
bytery. Why  then  may  not  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  ministers,  with  equal  propri- 
ety be  called,  as  it  always  has  been  called,  "  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  ?" 

When  after  the  ordination  of  a  minister  his 
co-presbyters  say  to  him,  "  We  give  you  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship,  to  take  part  of  this 
ministry  with  us,"  Dr.  Breckinridge,  unmind- 
ful of  the  canon  laid  down  by  himself  for  the 
right  understanding  of  the  word  Presbytery, 
finds  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  that  the  term 
ministry  does  not  mean  simply   the  ministry 
of  the  -word,  in  which  sense  alone  it  is  ever 
used  in  our  Form  of  Government :  and  he  as- 
serts that  it  is  here  to  be  taken  in  a  large  sense, 
as  including  the  ruling  as  well  as  the  preach- 
ing elders.     And  because  those  from  whom  he 
dissents  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  in  this 
passage,  maintain  that  it  is  here  limited  to  the 
ministers  of  the  word  :  he  asks,  "  And  has  it 
really  come  to  this,  that  the  ministry  is  no 
longer  a  service,   vunister  no  longer  a  ser- 
vant.''"    But  what  means  this  question  ?    Is  it 
intended  to  fmake  the  reader  beheve,  that  those 
who  do  not  agree  with  him  deny  that  the  min- 
isters of  the  word  are  the  servants  of  Christ 
and  his  Church  ?     I  would  hope  that  this  is 
not  its  design.     But  at  the  best  it  is  an  absurd 
question,  and  the  more  so,  as  those  whom  he 
thus  assails  maintain  that  the  ministers  alone 
are  called  servants,  and  that  the  ruling  ciders 
are  never  thus  designated.     Dr.  Breckinridge 
admits  that  the  word  ministry  is  no  doubt,  in 


36 


its  popular  use  often,  perhaps  generally  .applied 
to  the  ministers  of  the  word  ;  and  that  it  is  so 
used  in  the  very  chapter  which  treats  of  the  | 
ordination  of  ministers  is  a  fact  beyond  all  dis- 
pute. To  adopt  then  Dr.  Breckinridge's  mode 
of  reasoning,  will  you  stultify  our  fathers,  by 
supposing,  that  in  a  long  chapter  treating  of 
ordination,  they  have  used  the  terms  ministrij 
and  7ninisters,  the  one  three  and  the  other  fif- 
teen times,  in  their  popular  and  generally  re- 
ceived meanings,  and  that,  "  without  notice  or 
motive,"  they  have  used  the  word  ministry  in 
the  same  chapter  and  touching  the  same  busi- 
ness, in  a  sense  different  from  its  n^eaning  in 
every  other  part  of  the  Form  of  Government  ? 
That  the  term  ministry  in  the  salutation  ad- 
dressed to  the  newly  ordained  minister  denotes 
the  ministry  of  the  word  is  evident  also  from 
the  following  facts:  1.  That  the  use  of  the 
pronoun  this  limits  the  term  ministry  to  the 
very  ministry  to  which  the  person  addressed  is 
ordained.  2.  That  the  words  "  take  part  of 
this  ministry"  are  borrowed  from  Acts  i.  25, 
where  they  are  used  in  reference  to  the  ordi- 
nary ministry  of  the  Apostles,  which  was  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  3.  That  our  fathers 
were  wont  to  use  this  very  expression,  "  to 
take  part  of  this  ministry  with  us,"  when,  as 
is^conceded  by  all,  only  ministers  gave  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship. 

From  the  circumstance  that  our  directory 
for  ordination  does  not  absolutely  and  uncon- 
ditionally enjoin  the  use  of  the  words,  "  Wc 
give  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take 
part  of  this  ministry  with  us,  but  only  of  words 
to  this  purpose,  it  is  argued  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge and  others,  that  although  the  term  min- 
istry is  to  be  understood  as  limited  to  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,  yet  under  the  provisions  of 
the  rule,  some  other  suitable  word  could  be 
substituted  for  the  word  ministry  which  the 
ruling  elder  might  use.  As  to  the  "  suitable 
word"  which  might  be  substituted,  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge ventures  no  suggestion  :  and  he  would, 
I  apprehend,  find  it  to  be  no  easy  task  to  sug- 
gest a  form  of  words,  which  a  ruling  elder 
might  with  propriety  use,  and  which  would  be 
of  the  same  purport  with  the  words  given  in 


the  rule  itself.  These  show  that  those  who 
welcome  the  newly  ordained  minister  to  their 
fellowship  as  their  fellow-servant  must  be  them- 
selves ministers  of  the  word. 

Dr.  Breckinridge,  and  several  others  who 
could  be  named,  were  ruling  elders  before  they 
were  ordained  ministers  of  the  word.  Would 
it  have  been  anything  better  than  an  idle  cere- 
mony for  the  elders  present  to  have  said  to  such 
an  one,  "  We  give  you  the  right  hand  of  fel- 
lowship to  take  part  of  this  ministry  with  us," 
or  as  they  are  authorized  to  say  to  a  newly 
ordained  elder,  "  of  this  office  with  us,"  when 
the  person  thus  addressed  had  been  for  a 
greater  or  less  length  of  time  in  the  very  office 
to  which  he  is  now  welcomed,  and  upon  which 
he  is  supposed  to  have  just  entered  •*  I  need 
scarcely  add,  that  the  entirely  different  forms 
prescribed  in  our  constitution,  for  the  ordination 
of  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  show  most  con- 
clusively, that  it  is  no  part  of  the  theory  of 
government  set  forth  in  our  standards,  whatev- 
er connexion  it  may  have  with  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge's own  peculiar  views,  that  if  a  ruling  el. 
der  should  be  called  to  be  a  preacher,  he  re- 
quires no  new  ordination,  before  entering  upon 
his  new  office :  and  the  fact  that  under  our 
Form  of  Government  a  ruling  elder  must  bo 
again  ordained,  and  that  too  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  and  the  ad- 
ditional fact  that  after  his  ordination  his  co- 
presbytcrs  are  required  to  welcome  him  to 
this  ministry,  which  can  be  no  other  than  the 
gospel  ministry,  are  of  themselves  sufficient  to 
establish  the  position,  that  in  giving  this  salu- 
tation none  but  ministers  are  to  take  part ; 
and  unless  the  rule  is  made  to  contradict  itself, 
"  all  the  members  of  the  Presbytery"  who  give 
this  salutation  must  mean  only  those  whom 
Steuart  speaks  of  as  ilie  radical  members  of  the 
body.  His  words  are  "  Presbyteries  are  radi- 
cal as  to  the  pastors,  delegate  as  to  the  ruling 
elders." 

Some  scehi  to  imagine  that  the  use  of  the 
words  "all  the  members  of  the  Presbytery," 
in  ch.  XV.  14,  is  sufficient  to  settle  th;  ques- 
tion in  favour  of  ruling  elders  having  a  right 
to  take  part  in  the  ceremonies  of  ordination. 


37 


A  sufficient  answer  to  this  is  the  fact  that  in 
other  parts  of  the  Form  of  Government,  min- 
isters alone  are  spoken  of  as  members  of  the 
Piesbytery,  (see  cb.  x.  9,  xv.  12,  xvi.  6,)  and  in 
the  Boole  of  Discipline,  ch  v.,  "  Of  process 
against  a  bishop  or  minister."  The  ministers 
of  a  Presbytery  are  spoken  of  as  being  "  all  its 
members."  If  in  the  passage  here  referred 
to,  "  all  its  members"  mean  only  all  the  minii" 
ters,  as  beyond  all  possibility  of  dispute  is  the 
fact,  what  is  to  hinder  the  words  "all  the 
members"  in  the  first  cited  passage  from  mean- 
ing only  the  ministers  ? 

It  has  also  been  urged,  that  in  the  old  Scot- 
tish form,  as  found  in  Pardovan,  the  words  are, 
"  all  the  ministers  of  the  Presbytery  take  the 
person  ordained  by  the  right  hand,"  &c.,  and 
that  in  our  Form  of  Government  the  word 
members  was  substituted  for  the  very  purpose 
of  allowing  ruling  elders  to  give  the  righl 
hand  of  fellowship.  But  was  not  precisely  the 
same  change  made  in  the  case  of  the  person  who 
is  appointed  to  recite  to  the  people  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery  preparatory  to  the 
ordination  T  In  Steuart  the  language  is^"  the 
minister  from  the  pulpit,"  &c.  In  our  Form 
of  Government,  the  words  are,  "  The  same  or 
another  member  shall  briefly  recite  from  the 
pulpit."  In  making  this  change  was  there  any 
purpose  to  authorize  a  ruling  elder  to  perform 
this  part  of  the  ordination  service  and  to  make 
the  ordaining  prayer  ?  The  fact  is  that  the 
framers  of  our  constitution  frequently  use  the 
term  members  as  synonimous  wifh  ministers 
and  that  they  were  accustomed  to  speak  of  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  ministers  as  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  and 
to  account  for  the  change  in  the  terms  requires 
no  such  violent  hypothesis  as  the  one  above- 
mentioned,  viz.,  that  the  word  members  was 
substituted  for  ministers,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  ruling  elders  to  exercise  what  Dr. 
Breckinridge  insists  is  their  right  and  duty  in 
relation  to  the  imposition  of  hands,  in  the  or- 
<lin3tioR  of  ministers. 


XII. 

.ipril  20, 
Another  reason  urged  by   Dr.  Breckinridge 
with    much  earnestness,  why  the  decision  of 
the  last  Assembly,  respecting  the  imposition, 
should  be  rescinded,  is  this,  that  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  with  every  other  part  of  ordi- 
nation is  a  Presbyterial,  that  is  a  joint  power. 
If  by  ^'- joint  power"  be  understood  a  power 
which  in  ordinary  circumstances  is  not  to  be 
exercised  by  an  individual  minister,  in  the  or- 
dination of  ministers,  without  the  concurrence 
of  his   brethren   already  in  the   ministry,  the 
power  in  question  is  undoubtedly  a  joint  power. 
And  again,  if  by  "joint  power"  be  understood 
a  power,  which  under  a  presbyterian  form  o^ 
government,  and  in  a  settled  state  of  the  church 
is  not   to  be  exercised  by   the   ministers  of  a 
classical  Presbytery,  for  the  ordination   of  a 
minister  of  the    gospel,  without   the  implied 
consent  at  least,  of  "  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  usually  styled  ruling  elders,"  (see  Form 
of  Government,  ch.  iii.  4,  and  ch.  v.  3,)  the 
power  to  ordain  with  the  imposition  of  hands 
is  a  "joint  power."     But  in  no  other  sense 
than  those  given  above,  is  it  a  joint  power, 
nor  has  it  been  so  regarded   by   presbyterian 
writers  who  make  the  distinction,  to  which  Dr. 
Breckinridge  refers,  between  a  joint  and  a  sev- 
eral  power,  and  who  include  in  the  power  of 
regimen   both   "the   power  of   order,"  which 
Dr.  Breckinridge    calls   "a  several  power," 
and   "  the  power  of  discipline  or  jurisdiction" 
which  is  "a.  joint   power."     In   the  second 
Book  of  Discipline  they  are  called,  one  "  po- 
testas  ordinis,"  and  the  other  "  potestas  juris- 
dictionis."     And  in  the  treatise  entitled  "Jus 
Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiasticae,"  or.'  "  The 
Divine  Right  of  Church  Government,"  pub- 
lished first  in    1646,  the  same  distinction  is 
made,    and  the  same  and  analogous  forms  of 
expression  are  used  to  denote  that  distinction. 
According  to  this  treatise  the  power  exercised 
by  ministers  only,  and  in  virtue  of  their  office 
as  ministers  of  the  word,  is  called  "  the  power 
of  order"  or  the  "  key  of  doctrine"  &c.,  and 
the  power  exercised  by  them  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  ruling  elders  is  called  "  the  power 


38 


of  jurisdiction,"  or  the  "key  of  Jiscipline."  In 
making  this  distinction  between  joint  and  seve- 
ral power,  these  works  do  not  teach,  that  in  all 
matters  pertaining  to  the  joint  power  of  min- 
isters and  ruling  elders,  these  two  classes  of 
officers  have  equal  powers,  hut  merely  this, 
that  the  power  coinniilted  to  the  ministers,  for 
certain  purposes,  and  among  these  is  the  ordi- 
nation of  ministers,  is  not  to  be  exercised  un- 
less with  the  express  or  implied  consent  of  the 
ruling  elders,  who,  to  use  the  language  of  our 
own  Form  of  Government,  "  arc  properly  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  chosen  by  them 
for  the  purpose  of  exercising  government  and 
discipline,  in  conjunction  with  pastors  or  min- 
isters."— (Ch.  V.)  The  fact,  therefore,  that 
the  power  of  ordination  is  "  a  Joint  power" 
furnishes  no  ground  for  the  conclusion,  that 
the  ruling  elders,  who  at  any  given  meeting  of 
the  Presbytery  may  concur  in  a  vote  to  ordain 
a  candidate  for  the  ministry,  have  a  right  to 
take  part  in  the  ordination.  This  is  the  doc- 
trine of  our  standards,  in  reference  to  the  or- 
dination of  ministers  not  indeed  in  formal  and 
express  terms,  but  couched  in  language  which 
clearly  implies  it.  And  this  too,  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Form  of  Government  agreed  upon 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly. 

"  Ordination  is  the  act  of  a  Presbytery." 

"  The  power  of  ordering  the  whole  work  of 
ordination  is  in  the  whole  Presbytery,"  &c. 

"  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart  of 
a  person  to  some  public  church  office." 

"  Every  minister  of  the  word  is  to  be  or- 
dained by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  prayer, 
with  fasting,  by  those  preaching  presbyters  to 
whom  it  doth  belong." — (See  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment agreed  upon  by  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly—" Of  the  Ordination  of  Ministers.") 

According  to  tho  Westminster  Assembly 
then,  the  power  to  ordain  pertains  to  "the 
whole  Presbytery  ;"  or  in  other  words,  it  is  a 
joint  power,  and  yet  this  hinders  not,  that  the 
imposition  of  hands  should  be  by  the  ministers 

only. 

The  second  book  of  Discipline,  so  much 
lauded  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  teaches  the  same 
^doctrine  in  reference  to  matters  which  pertain 


to  "  the  joint  power"  of  ministers  and  elders.  In 
this  work  we  find  the  following  language,  "  It 
appertains  to  the  minister,  after  lawful  pro- 
ceeding by  the  eldership,  to  pronounce  the  sen- 
tence of  binding  and  loosing  upon  any  person, 
according  unto  the  power  of  the  keys  granted 
unto  the  kirk."  "  And  generally  all  public 
denunciations  that  are  to  be  made  in  the  kirk 
before  the  congregation  concerning  ecclesiasti- 
cal affairs,  belong  to  the  oflice  of  a  minister ; 
for  he  is  as  a  messenger  between  God  and  the 
people  in  all  these  affairs.  See  2d  Book  of 
Discipline,  chap.  iv. 

Steuart  of  Pardovan  says,  "  Ordination  is 
the  solemn  act  of  the  Presbytery  setting  apart 
a  person  to  some  public  church  office."  And 
again,  "  The  duties  of  elders  which  are  more 
public  are  these  which  lie  upon  them  in  the 
Assemblies  of  the  church;  in  which  ruling 
elders  have  a  right  to  reason  and  vote  in  all 
matters  coming  before  them  even  as  ministers 

have Howbeit,  by   the  practice 

of  the  church  the  execution  of  some  decrees  of 
the  church  doth  belong  to  the  pastors  only, 
such  as  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  pronounc- 
ing the  sentences  of  excommunication  and 
absolution,  the  receiving  of  penitents,  the  inti- 
mation of  sentences  and  censures  about  minis- 
ters and  such  like."  Here  then  we  see  that 
though  "  to  ordain"  pertains  "  to  the  power  of 
jurisdiction,"  yet  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  to  confine  the  imposition 
of  hands  to  the  ministers;  and  this  shows  that 
the  argument  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  fails  to  estab- 
lish his  point,  foi  although  ordination  pertains 
to  the  power  of  jurisdiction,  called  by  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge the  "  power  of  regimen,"  the  ceremony 
of  imposing  hands  appertains  to  the  power  of 
order. 

In  a  work  published  at  London,  in  1654,  by 
the  Provincial  Assembly  of  London,  and  evi- 
dently  written  in  support  of  the  views  main- 
tained by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  wc 
find  the  following  propositions  maintained. 
"  Ordination  of  ministers  ought  to  be  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery." 

"  By  the  Presbytery  is  meant  a  College  or 
company  of  Presbyters." 


39 


"That  the  power  of  ordering  the  whole 
work  of  ordination  belongs  to  the  whole  Pres- 
byterj,  that  is,  to  the  Teaching  and  Ruling  El- 
ders. But  Imposition  of  hands  is  to  be  always 
by  the  Preaching  Presbyters,  and  the  rather,  be- 
cause it  is  accompanied  with  prayer  and  ex- 
hortation, both  before,  in,  and  after,  which  is 
the  proper  work  of  the  teaching  elder."  See 
"Jus  Divinum  Ministerii  Evangelici,"  or  "the 
Divine  Rights  of  the  Gospel  ministry,"  chap, 
xiii. 

Agpin  speaking  of  the  purpose  for  which 
imposition  of  hands  is  used,  the  members  of 
the  Provincial  .\ssembly  say,  "  We  use  it  not 
as  an  operative  ceremony  but  as  a  moral  sign, 
to  declare  publicly  who  the  party  is,  that  is 
solemnly  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try." 

Thus  we  see,  that  while  the  members  of  the 
Provincial  Assembly  disclaim  all  idea  of  im- 
posing hands  as  "  an  operative  ceremony"  the 
"opus  operatum"  of  Dr.  Breckinridse,  they 
maintain  that  ordination  "ought  to  be  by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Piesbytery,"  and  at 
the  same  time  they  hold  that  the  imposition  of 
hands  pertains  to  ministers  only. 

We  have  the  same  doctrine  in  the  "  Jus 
Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiastici,"  or  "  the 
Divine  Right  of  Church  Government,"  the  de- 
sign of  which  is  to  prove  that  "  The  Presbyte- 
rial  government  by  preaching  and  ruling  pres- 
byters, in  Congregational,  Classical  and  Sy- 
nodical  Assemblies  may  lay  the  truest  claim 
to  a  Divine  right  according  to  the  scriptures." 
This  work  is  the  production  of"  sundry  minis- 
ters of  Christ  in  the  city  of  London,  and  as  pre- 
viously mentioned  was  published  iirst  in  1646. 
It  is  highly  commended  by  Baillie  in  a  letter, 
of  the  date  of  Jany.  26,  1647,  to  his  corres- 
pondent Mr.  Spang.* 

In  this  work  we  find  the  following  passages, 
"Ordinances  appertaining  to  the  Key  of  Juris- 
diction or  of  Discipline,  viz : 

•  This  letter  not  only  shows  the  high  esteem 
in  which  this  work  was  held,  but  also  that  the 
"  Form  of  Government"  agreed  upon  at  West- 
minster was  the  form  desired  by  the  Scottish 
Commissioners. 


1.  The  Ordination  of  Presbyters  with  the  im- 
position of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  &c. 

"  The  Apostles  themselves  thus  sent  forth 
by  Christ,  did  themselves  send  forth  others  into 
the  Mirdstry  with  imposition  of  hands." 

"  Now  the  Apostles  having  ordained  some, 
gave  them  commands  and  directions  for  ordain- 
ing others  after  them,"  &c. 

"  So  then  it  is  plain,  that  the  scripture  way, 
the  Apostolical  course  of  separating  men  unto 
the  Ministerial  Function  was  by  Ordination 
with  imposition  of  the  liands  of  the  Apostles 
upon  Presbyters,  and  oi these  Presbyters  upon 
other  Presbyters  and  so  on  successively." 

From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  the 
authors  of  this  work  leach,  1.  That  Ordination 
pertains  to  the  joint  power  of  Ministers  and 
Ruling  Elders,  for  it  is  the  first  ordinance 
assigned  by  them  to  "  the  Key  of  Jurisdiction," 
the  name  given  by  them  to  that  power  in  the 
exercise  of  which  "Ruling  Elders  may  act 
with  Ministers.  2.  That  Ministers  are  to  be 
ordained  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
Presbyters,  who  were  themselves  ordained  by 
imposition  of  hands  to  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try." That  none  of  the  Presbyters  here  spo- 
ken of  are  Ruling  Elders,  is  farther  evident 
from  the  following  passage,  "  For  though  it  is 
not  the  custom  of  the  Reformed  Churches  to 
impose  hands  upon  Ruling  Elders,  (which  is 
a  rite  observed  in  the  ordination  of  Pastors 
after  the  example  of  the  Apostolical  churches,) 
yet  they  have  the  substance  of  ordination  and 
mission,  being  examined  and  approved  by  a 
Presbytery,"  &c. 

Do  not  the  works  cited  above  teach  in  as 
strong  terms  as  our  own  form  of  government, 
that  the  power  to  ordain  is  "  a  joiiit  power?" 
and  yet  it  is  evident,  they  utterly  repudiate  the 
idea  that  any  others  than  the  preaching  Pres- 
byters are  to  take  part  in  imposition  of  hands. 
I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  this  part  of  Dr. 
Breckinridge's  argument  because  it  is  the  only 
part  that  has  much  plausibility,— a  plausibility 
arising  solely  from  the  fact,  that  in  a  settled 
state  of  the  church  like  our  own,  the  power  to 
ordain  cannot  be  exercised  by  the  ministers 
without  the  implied  consent  at  least,  of  the 


40 


Ruling  Elders,  and  in  this  sense  alone  under  (  This  view  of  the  source  of  their  power,  and 
our  Form  of  Government  is  the  power  to  or-  of  its  first  receptacle  in  ordinary  cases  is  con- 
dain  "a Joint  power."  ! firmed  by  "  The  Second  Book,  of  Discipline," 

In  a  settled  state  of  things  no  Presbyterian  6cc. 
would  for  a  moment  think  of  claiming  for  the  \  "  The  kirk  of  God  sometimes  is  taken  large- 
members  of  a  single  church,  or  for  several  ly  for  all  them  who  profess  the  evangel  of  Je- 
churches  combined,  the  right  to  ordain  a  man  sus  Christ.  .  .  .  Other  limes  it  is  taken 
to  the  gospel  ministry,  either  by  their  direct  for  the  godly  and  elect  only,  and  sometimes 
act,  or  mediately  through  their  representatives,  /or  those  ivho  exercise  spiritual  function  in 

be  they  even  Ruling  Elders.     How  then  can    

the  delegation   of  these  represcniatives  to  a' members  of  Presbytery  in  virtue  of  their  office, 

meeting  of  Prcshyterv  add  to  their  powers  as   but  only  in  virtue  ol  their   being  delegated  by 

-    ,     '        ,    .      .     1    ,  .  ■.  u      the  individual   churches    of  swhich   they   are 

representatives  of  the  people  ?     And   let  it  be    ^^j^j^^^.^^       ,^„j  1^^  contends  that  "  Presbyte- 

remembered,  that  by  whatever  name  they  are    ^jgg  ^^^  properly  composed  of  parishes,  con- 
called,  Ruling  Elders  appear    in  our   church  j  gregations,  particular  churches,  and  not  of  min- 
courts  only  in  their  distinctive    character    as    asters,"  and  he  undertakes   to  show    that  this 
•'  ^    ,  ,    „  ,         .        V    is  the  doctrine  of  our  own  constitution.     Uut 

«  representatives   of  the  people,     (see  ch.  v.)    ^,^^^  ^^^^  ^^^  p^^^^  of  Government— "A  Pres- 

a  most  honourable  distinction  indeed,  but  one  bvtery  consists  of  all  the  ministers  and  one 
which  confers  upon  them  no  ministerial  pow- 1  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation  within  a 

.     ,    .„    ,  ,  1  •      V.     •     .1,      certain  district."     And  it  is  worth  one's  while 

er.     And    if  the  power  to  ordain    be  in  the    ceridin  uui.ili.       .i.m  p^^Hn 

.  .  to  notice  how,  m  one  instance,  JJr.  tJrecKin- 
Presbytery,  and  to  this  I  fully  assent,  it  is  I  jj^^  ^^^jp^^^^^g  ^^PQ^hj^g  his  own  "  proper" 
there  because  it  belongs  to  the  ministers,  the  Jefinilion  of  the  term  Presbytery,  with  the  de- 
permanent  or  radical  members  of  the  body ;  I  finition  given  in  our  Form  of  Government. 
*        ,    .        .  ,    .        .V      ,   I,    „,u„„  .u„    Having  cited  the  words  "  The  Presbytery  has 

they  being  the   presbyters  through   "'hom  the  j    ^^^^^"^^  ^^^^.^^  „  ,^^^^,^^  „  ^^.^^^^  p^^^^^^^^^^^ 

church  is  to  exert  her  power  to  ordain  ministers  i^l^y  gjrjjgyon J  all  joul,t that 

as  they  may  be  found  qualified  and  be  needed. !  Presbytery  defined  in  the  same  chapter  which 
With  respect  to  the  exercise  cf  this  power,  the  \  declares  its  power  to  ordain,  as  being  lomposed 
„,._,,,,  •       u   .  .u  ;.     of  manii  seharate  congregations,     .... 

Ruling  Elders  have  a  voice,  but  the  power  it- ,  J^^  ^JJ^  ^^  ^^^^J^  of  ministers   and  rn- 

sclf  they  cannot  exert.     In  a  given  case,  if  i //„^  e/,/e,.s._(Ch.  x.  sec.  1,2,3.)"     Pray  tell 
they  outnumbered  the  ministers  of  a  presby-    us,  if  "to  consist"  does  not  mean  in  this  con- 
tery,  they  might  require  the  ministers  to  or- ,  nexion,  "to  be  composed  of,"  and  does  Dr. 
•^  ,    .  .    ,  J  Breckinridge   expect   to   fasten   upon   the  Ira- 

dain  a  man  contrary  to  their  own  judgment  i  ^^^^  ^^  ^^'^^  constitution,  the  absurdity  of  giv- 
ofwhat  is  expedient;  but  still  the  power  to  i  j^^jg.  ^^  ^^^^  jjl|-grent  definitions  in  two conligu- 
ordain  would  be  confined  to  the  ministers,  who  -  ous  sections  of  our  Form  of  Government,  the 
would  be  bound  to  comply  with  the  vote  of !  first  of  which  merely  points  out  the  importance 
*•'..,  ,,    ,    :and    usefulness  of  Piesbyteries   and  Synods, 

the  body  unless  for  reasons  which  would  ob-    ^^^  ^j^^  ^^^^^j  ^^^^^^^^  who  and  how  many  are 

•viously  justify  a  refusal  and  an  appeal  to  a  j^  compose  a  Presbytery?  'J'he  wants  of  the 
higher  court.  A  case  not  indeed  to  be  looked  i  several  churches  may  require  the  formation  of 
for,  but  yet  one  that  is  possible.  Presl^teries,  as  stated  in  section  1  of  ch.  x 

'     .    ;        ,     ,       ,  ,      ,  .   .  ,        1     !  but  this  IS  very  far  from  aflirming  that      Pres- 

If  It  be  asked,  whence  do  the  ministers  dc-  ,,^,^^1^,^  ^^^  proper!,/  composed  of  parishes, 
rive  their  power,  I  answer  directly  fiom  the  i  (.(jporegations,  particular  churches,"  nor  is  any 
Head   of  the   Church.     Their  election  by  the  i  such  thing   atlirniod  in  section  1.     When   a 

.     ,  .-...•  4i        I     nnrticular  church  has  need  of  council  and  as- 

peop  e  does  not  give  them  their  power,  though    pnriii-ui.ii  "-"u.^ .  /r,„„,,  „.„ 

i"'"y"'  ^  1  '  "    !  sislance  beyond  that  which  is  own  ofTicers  can 


ordinarily  it  precedes  the  conferring  of  the 
power  bestowed  upon  them  at  their  ordina- 
tion.* 


give,  by  means  of  a  Presbytery  it  may  obtain 
the  counsel  and  assistance  of  the  ministers  and 
ruling  ciders  of  which  the  Presbytery  consisU. 
And  were  we  to  grant  that  the  term  Presbyte- 
♦In  his  speech  on  the  Quorum  Question,  ry  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  several 
Dr.  Breckinridge  insists  that  ministers  are  not   churches,  connected  wit^  it,  and  whoso  rcpre- 


41 


the^^congresation  of   them   ^vho  profess   the  (     It  assigns  to  the  elders  the  rank  and  duties 

'     ...  I  assigned  to  them  in  the  Form  of  Government. 

i  he  knk  ^« //.-,  last  sense  has  certain  po^-  ;  For  proof,  see  eh.  iii.  2.     "  The  ordinary  and 

er  granted  by  God,  according  to  the  which  it    perpetual  officers  in  the  church  are  the  bishops, 

uses  a  proper  jurisdiction  and  government  ex- i  or  pastors,   the   representatives  of  the  people, 

ercised  to  the  comfort  of  the  whole  kirk."     .    .  |  usually  s,y led  /..//..o-  ^W,,.,  and   the   dea- 

The  pohcy  of  the   kirk    flowing  from   this    eons."     "  Ruling  Elders  are  properly  there- 

firLieW."-  ■;:' r;'""^^'^^-'^  ^«   '^^   0.  I       3entativesofthe  people,  chosen  by  them  for 

rp>     .,,      T^-   •  r.'    .  '  purpose    of  e.xercising    government    and 

ine  "Jus  Divmum  KeEimmis  ErcIesiatitiVi"    i:    •   r  •  •         ■ 

,„,  .       ,.  ,        .    «""""*  ^cciesiastici      discipline,    in    conjunction     with    pastors   or 

eaches  the  same  doctrine,  (see  ch.  xi.  sec.  2.)  |  ,i„i,ters.     This  office  has   been  understood, 
Of  the  first  receptacleof  the  power  of  Church^by  a  great  part  of  the  Protestant  Reformed 
uovernment,  viz.  Christ's  own  officers."  i  rhnr^i,„c    .     k    j     •       ■    i   •      u    ,    , 

rp.        .   .  ,        ,  '  ^iuirches,  to  be  designated  in  the  holy  scrip- 

i  He  ministers  though  chosen   by  the  neonle    tnm^    i„r  .i,«  <-.i       e   r^  ,      - 

,,   ,  ^  "'^l^t^opie   tuics,  by  the  title  of  Governments,   and   of 


are  never  called  representatives  of  the  people, 
either  in  our  own  or  any  other  form  of  Pres- 
byterian government.     But' in  our  own,  it  is 


those  who  rule  well,  but  do  not  labour  in  word 
and  doctrine."— (See  ch.  v.)  Here,  as  before 
remarked,  it  is  most  distinctly   affirmed   that 


^;m:„„,i      re        1    L      T,   ,.       ^  -  - 1  icmuiKtru,  ic  is  mosi  distinctly   attirmed   that 

distinctly  affirmed  that  Ruhng  Elders  are /j;o-   ti,„„  ,       , 

.      .    ,,  .    .  ,  8  ^i"t-rsare/j;o   -they   are   properly  the   representatives   of  the 

/'e;V^  the  representatives  of  the  peonle  audi  n '„„^  I        im  •    xi  '     •      ,    '     .    . 

,„  _  „  ...     ,     .     .   ,.         I^POP'^'  and  in   people.     1  his  then  is  their  distinctive  charac- 

ailmatterswithinthejurisdiction  of  our  church    tor      Th„  .      ,.    i  i  ■  l 

^^„„,,.„    ,  •'  .       ""r  cnurcn  [  ter.     They  are  not  called  bishops,  pastors,  min- 

court.  they  have  asrepresentatives  of  the  peo-listers,  angels  of  the   churches,    ambassadors, 

pie  an  equal  right  ..th  the  ministers  to  delib-!  nor    stewards    of    the  mysteries  of   God,  all 

erate  and  to  vote      But  this  does  not  imply  a  i  which     titles    are    given    to    those    in    the 

perfect  equahty  of  power  in  all  matters  per- 1  pastoral  office;  nor  are  they  called  elders,  ia 

taming  to  the  power  or  Key  of  Jurisdiction,   ,he  full  import  of  this  term  as  ministers  are. 

tjjat  .  the  jomt  power  of  ministers  and  ruling  ,  For  proof,  compare  sec.  1  of  ch.  iv.  with  sec. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  the  only  one  !  p  ^ 'Vn   '"?  "'f^^^'""'  ""'"^"^  ''y^''^ 
which  gives  a  consistent  construction  to  our  I     ^  ^"^  "^^"^  "'"  '''°''"  ^°'  '^"  P"^' 

I  pose  of  exercising  government  and  discipline 
I  in   conjunction    with    pastors    or    ministers, 
j  This  office  has  been  understood,  .... 
sentatives,  viz.,  the  ruling  eiders,  have  a  right  i '°  '^e  designated     ...     by  the  title  of  gov- 

Tr,  Z  ZT'  r'  "'  '"'"r"'  """"^   '"  '"-''  P^"-' '  '•^"'"^"^^  ^"J  °f  'h°^e  who  rule  well." 
in  Its  deliberations,  might  we  not  art^ue  as  Di-  a 

Breckinridge   does,  in   reference    to°lhete7m!  '"eP'-escniatives  of  the  people,  they  are, 

ministry  ?  The  word  Presbytery  is  no  doubt,  I  '^^^^^  delegated  by  their  respective  church  ses- 
in  its  popular  use,  sometimes  applied  to  the' i  ^'^'""s,  permitted  to  take  seats  in  Presbytery 
n:ZS^:^e^;S^:^t^^;^:J::,-rt'^-^  V^^^;  -^^hberate  and  votel  ^J 
and  those  of  other  Presbyterian  cCches   use  '  '°"'™'  ***  '^'  Presbytery. 

It  techmcallij  to  mean"  a  college  or  body  ofP"'°^  *^'^  *^°"''*  *^^y  3^"®  ""ly  members  in 
presbyters.     Whether  all  the  ministers  and  all    ^'''•tue  of  their  being  delegates  from  their  seve- 

S^^h^:'^^:^;^;^^ -^ti' v!:i:^;:st'  ^'"t"  f  r  I' '-'"'''''  --  -- 

mgs  of  the  body  must  depend  upon  the  rule.  '  '"  "''''"'  °^  ^^^''  ''^''''    ^" ^  ^^nce,  both 

of  each  church.     As  to  what  is  the  imnort  of  ^"  PoP^lar  language  and  in  our  Form  of  Gov. 

oiir  rnlpo  nn  fV.i'c  ^«;.,.  .i ,  '  I ...  .    . 


constitution,    and  this  fact  furnishes  conclu- 
sive evidence  that  it  is  the  correct  view. 


our  rules  on  this  point  there  can  be  no  room 
for  doubt  The  doctrine  of  the  VVeslminster 
1-orm  of  Government  respecting  the  compo- 
sition of  a  Presbytery  is  the  same  as  our  own, 
and  lor  two  centuries  it  has  been  the  Form  of 
Government  of  the  Scottish  Church 


ernmenf,  the  ministers  are  alone  spoken  of  as 
members  of  the  Presbytery,  being  the  only 
permanent  or  radical  members  of  the  body.— 
See  ch.  X.  9.—"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
the  Presbytery     ...     to  report  to  the  Sy- 

6 


42 


nod  every  year,  licenses,  ordinations,  the  re-  i 
ceiving  or  dismissing  of  members,  the  remo- ! 
val  of  members  by  death,''  &c.  (See  also  ch. 
XV.  12,  and  ch.  xvi.  6,  Book  of  Discipline,  ch. 
V,  1  and  2.)  "As  the  honour  and  success  of  I 
the  gospel  depend  in  a  great  measure  on  the 
character  of  its  mitastevs,  each  presbytery 
ought,  with  the  greatest  care  to  watch  over  the 
personal  and  prufessional  conduct  of  all  its 
members.  But  as  on  the  one  hand,  no  minister 
ought,  on  account  of  his  office,  to  be  screened 
from  the  hand  of  justice,  nor  his  offences  to 
be  slightly  censured ;  so  neither  ought  scan- 
dalous charges  to  be  received  against  him,  by 
any  judicatory  on  slight  grounds.  Process 
against  a  gospel  minister  shall  always  be  en- 
tered before  the  Presbytery  of  which  he  is  a 
member,"  Who  are  the  persons  embraced  in 
the  phrase  "all  its  members  1"  Will  any  body 
pretend  that  they  are  any  others  than  the  min- 
isters, the  permanent  members  of  the  body, 
and  who  in  certain  connexions  arc  spoken  of 
as  the  Presbytery  ?  This  view  of  the  subject 
removes  all  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  rules  re- 
lating to  the  ordination  of  ministers.  For  it 
enables  us  to  reconcile  at  once  all  apparent 
discrepancies,  and  it  makes  our  rules  to  speak 
a  language  consistent  with  the  practice  of  our 
own  church,  and  of  all  other  Presbyterian 
churches,  in  confining  the  imposition  of  hands, 
and  the  other  ceremonies  of  ordination,  to  the 
ministers  of  the  Presbytery,  and  in  styling 
those  who  perlbrm  these  ceremonies  the  Pres- 
bytery. If  in  our  Book  of  Discipline,  all  the 
members  of  a  Presbytery  can  mean  the  min- 
isters of  the  Presbytery,  as  beyond  all  dispute 
is  a  fact,  what,  I  again  ask,  is  to  hinder  their 
having  the  same  meaning  in  our  Form  of  Go- 
vernment 1 

The  simplest  idea  of  a  Presbytery  is,  as  has 
been  remarked,  that  of  a  convention  of  Pres- 
byters, with  these  may  be  associated  for  cer- 
tain purposes,  in  our  classical  presbyteries, 
and  other  church  courts,  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  who  are,  as  our  Form  of  Govern- 
ment says,  "  usually  styled  ruling  ciders." 
Conjointly  with  the  Piesbyters  to  whom  is 
committed  the  power  of  preaching  the  word,ad- 


ministering  the  sacraments,ordaining  ministers, 
and  administeiing  discipline,  ruling  elders  have 
for  matters  pertaining  strictly  to  government 
and  discipline  a  right  to  deliberate  and  vote  in 
all  decisions  made  by  the  Presbytery,  but  here 
their  power  ends.  They  have  no  power  to 
ordain,  though  jointly  with  the  ministers,  they 
have  a  right  to  say  whether  a  candidate  shall 
or  shall  not  be  ordained. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  maintains  that  ministers 
ordain  only  as  rulers,  and  that  as  rulers  they 
are  on  precisely  the  same  footing  with  the  ru- 
ling elders,  and  further  that  they  are  both  of 
the  same  order  of  Presbyters,  and  that  one 
ordination  is  sufficient  for  both  offices  whether 
the  man  be  ordained  a  minister  or  a  ruling  el- 
der. And  not  only  so,  but  as  ordination  is  a 
joint  power,  an  individual  minister  can  in  no 
case  ordain.  What  says  our  constitution  res- 
pecting the  ordination  of  ruling  elders.  Who 
ordains  them,  or  in  other  words  who  sets  them 
apait  to  their  office?  "The  minister  shall 
proceed  to  set  apart  the  candidate  by  prayer  to 
the  office  of  ruling  elder."  Where  is  Dr. 
Breckinridge's  joint  power  in  this  oidination  ; 
an  ordination  that  in  his  view  renders  any  other 
ordination  for  the  ministry  unnecessary  ?  In 
the  revision  made  in  1821,  a  section  was  add- 
ed to  the  chapter  "  Of  electing  and  ordaining 
ruling  elders  and  deacons,"  in  these  words, 
"  Where  there  is  an  existing  session,  it  is  pro- 
per for  the  members  of  that  body,  at  the  close 
of  the  service,  and  in  the  face  of  the  congre- 
gation, to  take  the  newly-ordained  elder  by  the 
hand  saying  in  words  to  this  purpose,  We 
give  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take 
part  of  this  office  with  us."  But  not  one  word 
respecting  their  taking  part  in  the  ordination 
service,  or  their  assenting  to  it,  except  as  part 
of  the  congregation.  Dr.  Breckinridge  may, 
if  he  chooses,  contend  that  it  ought  to  be 
otherwise,  I  shall  content  myself  with  taking 
the  fact  as  it  is.  There  is  need,  indeed,  that 
in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  the  ordaining 
power  should  be  exercised  with  greater  caution 
than  may  be  requisite  in  the  ordination  of  ru- 
ling elders,  for  in  virtue  of  his  office  the  min- 
ister himself  is  invented  with  the  power  of  or- 


43 


daining  others,  and  becomes  also  a  joint  ruler 
of  the  different  churches  connected  with  his 
''resb^'tery,  and  therefore  in  relation  to  the 
ordination  of  ministers,  it  is  highly  expedient 
that  the  power  to  ordain  should  be  restricted 
somewhat  in  its  exercise,  so  that  not  only  the 
consent  of  the  individual  church,  of  which  the 
candidate  may  have  been  chosen  pastor, 
should  be  had,  but  also  the  consent  of  all 
the  other  churches  of  the  Presbytery  should 
be  given  through  their  representatives,  the 
ruling  elders  ;  and  further,  it  is  altogeth- 
er proper,  that  this  power  should  not  be 
exercised  by  one  individual  minister,  unless  by 
the  appointment  of  all  his  fellow-ministers,  each 
one  of  whom  possesses  the  same  power  that 
he  does,  and  who  ought  to  share  in  its  exer- 
cise. 


XIII. 


April  20. 
"  Our  Form  of  Government,"  says  Dr. 
Breckinridge,  "  ch.  viii.  sec.  1  and  2,  quotes  Acts 
XV.  6,  to  prove  the  government  of  the  church 
to  be^Mre  divino  in  assemblies  congregational, 
classical,  and  synodical ;  and  then  in  ch.  x. 
sec.  1,  and  ch.  xi.  on  the  title,  it  quotes 
the  same  passage  to  prove  that,  jure  divino, 
classical  and  synodical  assemblies  are  composed 
of  Pastors  and  Ruling  Elders."  A  mistake  by 
the  way,  for  the  object  of  the  references  is  to 
show  the  scriptural  warrant  for  Presbyteries 
and  Synods,  and  not  to  show  how  they  are  to 
be  composed.  He  then  says,  "  In  ch.  xv.  sec. 
14,  1  Tim.  iv.  14  is  quoted  to  prove  that  in 
ordination  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  ought  to 
be  imposed  ;  and  in  ch.  x.  sec.  1.  the  same  pas- 
sage is  quoted  to  prove  that  many  congrega- 
tions are  united  in  one  Presbytery  composed 
of  Pastors  and  Ruling  Elders."  The  same 
mistake  as  before.  I'hen  after  a  few  remarks, 
he  adds,  "  Here,  sir,  I  may  boldly  take  my 
stand.  These  marginal  citations  clearly  prove 
by  scripture,  that  the  doctrine  asserted  in  our 
standards  is  that  which  I  assert  before  you 
now :  and  that  the  men  who  put  them  there 


and  have  kept  them  there  understood  these 
standards  to  teach  this  doctrine."  Has  Dr. 
Breckinridge  really  persuaded  himself  that  this 
last  assertion  is  true,  and  that  the  framers  of 
our  "  Form  of  Government"  understood  it  to 
teach  the  doctrine  for  which  he  contends? 
Would  it  not  be  a  thing  most  marvellous,  that 
they  cited  these  texts  to  prove  that  it  is  the  light 
and  duty  of  both  ministers  and  ruling  elders 
to  take  part  in  the  ordination  of  ministers,  and 
yet  that  their  practice  should  have  been  in  all 
cases  at  variance  with  their  own  understanding 
of  our  Form  of  Government  and  the  word  of 
God  1  What  cannot  a  man  believe  that  be- 
lieves this  ? 

Dr.  Breckinridge  was  probably  ignorant  of 
the  fact,  that  these  very  texts  of  scripture  of 
which  he  speaks,  as  being  cited  in  our  stan- 
dards, had  been  previously  cited  in  the  West- 
minster Form  of  Government  for  the  identical 
purposes  for  which  they  are  cited  in  our  own. 
That  the  reader  may  compare  the  citations  in 
the  one  work  with  those  in  the  others,  I  will 
give  such  parts  of  the  different  passages  referred 
to  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  as  the  texts  mentioned 
by  him  are  designed  lo  establish,  and  then  the 
corresponding  ones  in  the  Westminster  Form 
of  Government. 

Ch.  viii.  1,2.  "  And  we  hold  it  to  be  expe- 
dient, and  agreeable  to  scripture  and  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  Christians,  that  the  church 
be  governed  by  congregational,  presbi/terial, 
and  syjiodical  assemblies."  Reference,  Acts 
XV.  6. 

Their  power  is  vi'holly  moral  or  spiritual,  and 
that  only  ministerial  [and  declarative.  Acts 
XV.  G.    • 

Ch.  X.  1 .  "  Hence  arise  the  importance  and 
usefulness  oi  Presbyterial  and  Synodical  Ks- 
semblies.  Acts  xv.  6.  1  Tim.  iv.  14. 

Ch.  xi.  "  on  the  title."  The  proofs  adduced 
in  favour  of  a  Presbytery  are  said  to  be  equally 
valid  for  a  synod,  but  are  not  repeated. 

Ch.  XV.  14.  Then  the  presiding  minister 
shall,  by  prayer  and  luith  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,  ....  solemnly 
ordain.   1  Tim.  iv.  14. 

The  reference  to  sec.  2  of  ch.  viii.  is  iirele- 


44 


ant  to  the  matter  in  hand,  and  the  verse  cited 
is  but  one  of  32  verses  referred  to,  and  of  itself 
does  not  prove  the  doctrine  contained  in  the 
above  extract  from  sec.  2  of  ch.  viii. 

Extracts  from  the  Westminster  Form  of 
Government. 

"It  is  lawful  and  agreeable  to  the  -.cord 
of  God,  that  the  church  be  governed  by  sev- 
eral sorts  of  Assemblies  which  are  congrega. 
tional,  classical,  and  synodical." 

Of  classical  assemblies. — The  Scrip- 
tures doth  hold  out  a  Presbytery  in  the  church." 
]  Tim.  iv.  15,  Acts  xv.  6.  and  other  verses 
in  the  same  chapter. 

Of  Synodica I  ^h-semblies. — The  Script ure 
doth  hold  out  another  sort  of  Assemblies,    .  . 
which  we  call  synodical."     Reference,  Acts  xv. 
6,  and    the  verses  of  the  same  chapter. 

"  Ordination  is  the  Act  of  Presbytery."  1 
Tim.  iv.  14. 

These  two  "  Forms  of  Government"  agree  as 
to  the  composition  of  a  Presbytery,  and  if  the 
marginal  citations  in  our  own  Form  prove  that 
Dr.  Breckinridge's  doctrine  is  the  doctiine  of 
our  standards,  they  also  prove  that  his  doc- 
trine is  the  doctrine  of  the  Form  agreed  upon 
by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  for  they  are 
cited  for  the  very  same  purpose,  in  both.  But 
unfortunately  for  his  argument,  the  texts  of 
scripture  referred  to  are  cited,  neither  in  our 
own  nor  in  the  Westminster  Form  of  Govern- 
jnent  to  make  good  the  definitions  they  respec- 
tively give  of  the  composition  of  a  Presbytery  ; 
and  more  unfortunately  yet,  the  Westminster 
Form  expressly  declares  that  "Preaching  Pres- 
byters orderly  associated,  either  in  cities  or 
neighboring  villages,  are  those  to  whom  the 
imposition  of  hands  doth  appertain." 

Farther  comment  on  this  part  of  his  argu- 
ment mviiit  be  unnecessary,  as  no  one,  it  is 
presumed,  can  fail  to  see  that  his  statement  is 
erroneous  and  his  conclusion  false,  notwith- 
.standing  the  confidence  with  which  he  makes 
the  one  and  maintains  the  other. 

That  before  the  adoption  of  our  constitution  in 
1 788,  itwas  the  uniform  practice  for  ministers  a- 
lone  to  ordain,  is  a  fact  not  questioned,  and  that 
the  satne  practice  has  brcn  continued   from 


that  time  with  like  uniformity,  until  within 
a  comparatively  recent  period,  is  a  fact  equal- 
ly certain.  Evidence  of  this  the  most  abund- 
ant could  be  furnished,  but  as  it  is  not  likely 
in  the  present  stage  of  the  controversy  to  be 
called  seriously  into  question,  I  will  content 
myself  with  referring  to  the  columns  of  the 
Presbyterian,  and  with  inserting  in  this  com- 
munication an  extract  from  a  letter  written 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Green,  in  answer  to  certain 
inquiries  which  I  made  of  him  in  relation  to 
this  and  other  matters: 

Philadelphia,  Jany.  25,  1844. 

My  Dear  Sir : 

Your  communication  of  the  date  of  yester- 
day is  before  me.  without  repeating  your 
questions,  I  will  answer  them  numerically.  * 

1.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  1788, 
which  ratified  the  constitution  of  our  church, 
and  am  the  only  member  of  that  Synod  who 
is  now  in  life. 

2.  I  never  heard  a  suggestion  from  any 
member  of  that  body,  that  the  directory  for 
ordination  should  be  altered,  so  as  to  admit  el- 
ders to  impose  hands  in  a  minister's  ordina- 
tio'i. 

3.  I  never  heard  of  ruling  elders  imposing 
hands  in  ordination,  before  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  of  our  church. 

4.  The  imposition  of  hands  in  ordination 
by  ruling  elders  is,  with  me,  a  perfect  novelty. 
I  never  heard  of  it,  or  thought  of  it,  till  it  was 
advocated  by  Dr.  Robert  Bieckinridge.  If  he 
did  not  first  start  the  subject  I  cannot  tell  who 
did. 

Very  sincerely  and  affectionately 

Yours, 
ASIIBEL  GREEN. 
Ri:v.  Dii.  John-  Maclkan. 


•  The  questions  to  which  the  above  answers 
were  criven  by  Dr.  Green,  were  the  foilowitia  : 

1.  Were  you  not  a  memiier  of  the  Synod  of 
1788,  whicli  ratilicd  and  adopted  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  Church  ? 

2.  Did  you  ever  hear  the  suggestion  made 
in  that  body,  or  by  any  of  the  meml'crs  of 
said  Synod,  that  the  Directory  for  ordination 
should  be  so  altered  as  to  admit  of  ruling  el- 
crs  imposing  hands  .^ 


45 


After  reading  the  statement  of  Dr.  Green  !  mittee  to  ordain,  over  that  of  having  a  meeting 
■can  any  one  believe  that  it  was  the  of  the  Presbytery  itself  was  entirely  taken  away> 
intention  of  the  Synod  of  1 788  to  make  any  as  in  most  if  not  in  every  case  at  least  three  min- 
change  whatever  in  reference  to  the  persons  to  isters  were  required  to  take  part  in  the  ordina- 
take  part  in  ordinations.  But  the  fact  that  it :  tion  services  :  and  there  was  a  decided  advan- 
was  no  unuiual  thing,  before  the  adoption  of,  tage  gained  in  requiring  the  Presbytery  to  as- 
the  constitution  in  1788,  for  a  Presbytery  to  semble ;  for  in  the  first  place  there  was  the 
ordain  by  a  committee  of  ministers,  and  that  greater  probabiity  of  always  securing  the  at- 
after  178S,  this  practice  was  discontinued,  Dr.  tendance  of  a  sufficient  number  of  ministers 
Breckinridge  regards  as  evidence  that  it  was  ^  to  take  part  in  the  ordination,  and  in  the 
the  design  of  the  framers  of  our  Form  of  Gov-  i  second  place  the  ministers  met  to  ordain  could, 
ernment  in  requiring  all  ordinations  to  be  by  [  whenever  there  should  be  a  call  for  it,  attend 
a  Presbytery,  and  in  no  case  by  a  committee  \  to  any  other  presbyterial  business  that  might 
of  the  body,  to  recognise  the  right  and  duty  j  be  brought  before  them,  which  in  a  Presbyte- 
of  ruling  elders  to  take  part  in  ordination  it- 1  ry  composed  of  ministers  scattered  over  a  wide 
self,  as  well  as  in  deciding  whether  the  candi- ;  extent  of  country  and  but  few  in  number 
date  shall  be  ordained.  Could  no  other  pos-  \  would  often  be  a  matter  of  great  convenience 
sible  reason  be  given  for  the   discontinuance    to  all  concerned. 

of  the  practice  of  ordaining  by  a  committee  Much  has  been  said  by  Dr.  Breckinridge 
than  the  one  assigned  by  Dr.  Breckinridge,  we  and  others  to  convey  the  idea  that  those  who 
could  allow  that  there  was  some  weight  in  his  favour  the  views  of  the  last  Assembly,  rely  al- 
conjecture,  although  it  contradicts  all  tradition    most    exclusively    upon  the  practice   of  the 


in  regard  to  this  point,  and  not   only  so,  but 
it  involves  a  necessity  for  our  believing  that  to 


church,  and  they  do  this  because  they   are  not 
supported  by  the  language  of  the  constitution. 


attain  an  end,  and  an  end  too,  in  the  estima-  i  On  the  contrary,  we  maintain  that  the  words 
tion  of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  of  vital  importance  I  of  the  constitution  fairly  and  justly  interpreted, 
to  the  Presbyterian  system,  the  framers  of  our  I  according  to  their  true  intent  and  meaning, 
constitution,  of  set  purpose,  so  worded  our  Di- '  teach  the  doctrine  asserted  by  the  Assembly 
rectory  for  ordination  as  to  allow  ruling  eld- !  and  we  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  church  to 
ers  to  impose  hands  in  ordination,  and  yet  in  :'  show  that  our  fathers  who  framed  our  directo- 
no  one  instance  did  they  ever  pay  the  least  j  ry  for  ordination  understood  these  words  in 
attention  to  the  rule  which  they  themselves  the  very  same  way  in  which  they  were  under- 
had  made,  and  made  with  design  of  bringing    stood  by  the  Assembly  of  1843.     Were  we  t& 


about  a  change. 

By  making  the  quorum  of  a  Presbytery  so 


grant,  which  we  do  not,  that  the  words  of  the 
Book  would  admit  of  the  construction  given 


email  as  to  require  the  presence  of  only  three    to  them  by  Dr.  B.,  it  would  not  follow   as 
ministers,  instead  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  :  matter  of  course  that  his  interpretation  was  the 
number  as  directed  in  Pardovan,  the  advantage  ■  true  one  ;  for  it  might  arise  from  the  ambigui- 
on  the  ticoreofconvenience  of  appointing  a  com- 1  ty  of   the  terms,  and    in  this    case,    though 
hy  themselves,  or  in  given  connexions,   they 

o    -D  r       ,,         ,      .        ^    ,  .      .        might  bear  the  signification  assigned  by  Dr 

3.  Betore  the  adoptron  of  the  constitution  I  t,  ,•  -i  ,  ■  ,  .  ,.  ' 
by  the  Synod  of  1788,  did  you  ever  hear  ^f  I  ^'"'^ckmndge,  yet  in  the  connexion  m  which 
ruhng  elders  taking  part  in  the  imposition  of!  ^^"^7  actually  occur  this  interpretation  might 
^i^'nds  1                                                                    be   farthest  possible  from  the  truth.     Of  one 

4.  What  is  the  earliest  period  in  the  history  I  thing  I  feel  confident,  that  it  will  be  very  cif- 
of  our  church,   when  so   tar  as  ycu   know,  it  I  ^     ,.  ^    t.    tj      .  ■     •  i  •,     . 

was  ever  maintained  that  it  was'the  right  and  '  ^''^"'^  ^"^  ^'-  Breckinridge  to  persuade  the  mem. 
duty  of  ruling  elders  to  take  part  in  the  impo- 1  ^^^^^  elders,  and  ministers  of  our  churches  that 
siiion  of  hands  >  { our  fathers  who  framed  and  adopted  our  stand- 


46 


nrds  (3i(I  not   understand  the  import  of  their ' 
own  language,  or  that  having  a  correct  appre- 
hension of  its  meaning,  they  all  of  them  acted  ] 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  intent  and  meaning  ! 
of  the  rules  which  they  had  made  for  the  govern- 1 
ment  of  the  church.     Nor  will  the  disrespect- ; 
ful  tone  in  which  he  speaks   of  the  practice  of: 
the  church  serve  his  purpose.      When  he  imag- 
ines, however  erroneously,  that  the  practice  of; 
our  own  or  of  other  churches  will  help  his  cause, ' 
he  is  ready  to  refer  to  it ;  and  it  is  not  a  little  cu- 
rious to  observe  how,  like  the  guest  of  the  syl-  j 
Tan  god  in  the  fable,  he  can  blow  hot  and  blow 
cold,  with  the  same  breath,  according  as  it  is 
important  for  him  to  do  the  one  or  the  other. 
In  his  speech  on   the  Quorum  Question,  when 
he  conceits  that  the  annulling  of  the  "  Six  pre- 
tended  General  Assemblies,"  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1638,  and  the  appointment  of 
Ruling  Elders  as  members   of  the  commission 
to    the    Westminster   Assembly,     sustain   his 
•views  respecting  the  Quorum  of  a  Presbytery, 
he  appeals    with    confidence  to  these  cases, 
having  previously   remarked  that  the  whole 
matter  is    "res    adjudlcata ;"   a  matter    of 
course  that  admits  of  no  further  dispute. 

But  when  knowing  enough  of  the  practice 
of  our  own  and  other  Presbyterian  Churches,  to 
know  that  the  weight  of  authority  is  against 
him,  respecting  the  imposition  of  hands  in  or- 
dination, and  had  he  known  more  of  it,  he 
would  have  known  that  it  was  all  against  him  ; 
he  thus  speaks  :  "  The  practice  of  other  church- 
es I  do  not  pretend  to  have  sufficiently  exam- 
ined into,  to  speak  with  confidence  about  it." 
"If  we  had  certain  information  and  a  uniform 
practice,  there  might  be  some  inducement  to 
look  into  this  idlest,  vaguest,  weakest  part  of 
the  most  uncertain  of  all  rules  of  duly, — the 
opinions  of  men  as  weak,  as  ignorant,  and  as 
simple  as  ourselves."  And  yet  after  this 
sweeping  assertion,  he  occupies  not  less  than 
five  columns  of  the  Presbyterian  witli  discus- 
sions to  ihow  that  the  testimony  of  the  older 
Reformed  Chuclies  is  in  itself  considered  more 
for  him  than  against  him. 

To  make  good  this  assertion,  he  begins 
with  the  Reformed  Church  of  France,  upon  j 


which  he  bestows  a  just  and  glowing  eulogy; 
and  among  other  statements  respecting  the  rules 
and  practice  of  this  church,  he  makes  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  The  confession  of  this  church  was 
drawn  up,  as  is  generally  supposed,  by  John 
Calvin  himself,  and  was  adopted  by  several  of  it« 
National  Synods,  including  the  first  of  the 
tWfcUiy-nine  which  met  at  Paris  on  the  1 5th  of 
May,  1569.  By  it  ministers  of  the  -word 
■were  ordained  by  committee,  tvlnch  always 
consisted  of  two  pastors  deputed  by  a  provin- 
cial Synod  ora  Colloquy  (^Presbytery).^'  A  ve- 
ry good  beginning  this,  to  prove  that "  this  tes- 
timony is  not  only  more  for  me  than  against 
me."  I  shall  not  detain  the  reader  by  a  review 
of  the  sophistry  and  special  pleading  by  which 
Dr.  B.  endeavors  to  evade  the  force  of  the  fact 
which  he  could  not  deny,  that  in  the  Reformed 
Church  of  France,  ordination  of  ministers 
of  the  word  was  always  by  ministers  of 
the  word,  and  that  in  no  case  did  ruling  elders 
ever  unite  with  the  ministers  in  the  ordination 
services.*  The  testimony  of  the  Church  of 
Geneva  Dr.  Breckinridge  mentions  in  connex- 
ion with  that  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
France,  and  admits  that  they   agree. 

The  next  testimony  to  which  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge refers,  is  that  of  the  second  or  latter 
Helvetic  Confession.  From  the  xviii.  chap- 
ter of  this  confession,  which  treats  of  ministers, 
Dr.  Breckinridge  quotes  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  Et  qui  electi  sunt,  ordinentur  a 
senioribus  cum  orationibus  publicis  el  impo- 
sitione  manuiim.  And  those  who  are  cho- 
sen ought  to  be  ordained  by  Elders,  with  pub- 
lic prayers  and  imposition  of  hands." 

But  who,  let  mc  ask,  arc  the  Elders  spo- 
ken of  in  this  section?  The  ministers  of  the 
word,  and  only  these.  In  the  whole  confcs. 
sion  there  is  not  one  word  about  any  other 
Presbyters  or  Elders  than  those  who  are  aUo 


*Frorn  arr  enactment  of  the  1 7th  Gen- 
eral Synod,  wliich  met  in  KiO.'},  it  appears 
that  to  the  ceremonies  directed  to  be  used 
in  the  ordination  of  Ruling  Elders,  the  im- 
position of  hands  had  in  some  of  the  churches 
lieen  added,  and  this  the  Synod  strictly  pro- 
hibited. See  Quick's  Synodican,  vol.  I.,  p.  229. 


47 


called  Pastors  and  Doctors.  These  are  "  the 
senators  and  fathers  of  the  Church,"  mention- 
ed in  this  confession,  as  "  governing  it  with 
wholesome  counsel,"  and  the  term,  "  Elders," 
like  the  terms  "  Bishops,"  "  Pastors,"  and 
"  Doctors,"  is  given  as  a  suitable  appellative 
of  the  ministers,  all  vrhose  offices,  it  is  said, 
are  suni'red  up  in  these  two,  viz;  preaching 
"  the  evangelical  doctrines  of  Christ,"  and  the 
lawful  administration  of  the  sacraments.  "  Of- 
ficia  ministrorum  sunt  varia,  quse  tamen  ple- 
rique  ad  duo  restringunt,  in  quibus  omnia  alia 
confunduntur,  ad  doctrinam  Christi  evan- 
gelicam,  etad  legitimam  sacramentorum  admin- 
istrationem."  Under  these  two  are  included 
among  many  others,  "  the  rebuking  of  those 
who  do  amiss,  the  calling  back  of  those  that 
err  ;"  "  the  driving  away  of  wolves  from  the 
Lord's  sheep  fold,"  "  the  prudent  and  earnest 
reproving  of  acts  of  wickedness  and  of  those  who 
commit  them,"  the  preventing  ofschisms,  &c, — 
"  corripere  peccantes,  revocare  in  viam  errantes 
lupos  denique  ah  ovili  dominico  abigere,"  &c. 
"As  if  to  put  the  matter  out  of  dispute,"  says 
Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  the  subject  is  closed  with 
the  declaration,  that  those  who  depose  and  those 
who  ordain  are  the  same."  Very  good.  I 
will  now  cite  the  passage,  a  thing  not  done  by 
Dr.  Breckinridge.  "  Inquirendum  enim  diligen- 
ter  in  doctrinam  et  vitam  ministrorum,  in  Sy- 
nodis.  Corripiendi  sunt  peccantes  a  serdori- 
bus,  et  in  viam  reducendi,  si  sunt  sanabiles, 
aut  deponendi,  et  veluti  lupi  abigendi  sunt  pet 
veros  pasiores  a  grege  dominico,  si  sunt  incu- 
rabiles."  "  In  the  Synods,  careful  inquiry  is 
to  be  made  into  the  doctrine  and  hfe  of  the 
ministers.  Those  who  do  amiss  are  to  be  re- 
buked by  the  Elders,  if  curable,  or  to  be  de- 
posed, and  as  wolves  to  be  driven  away,  by  the 
true  shepherds  from  the  Lord's  flock,  if  they 
be  incurable."  Who  in  this  passage  are  the 
Elders  by  whom  erring  itinisters  are  to  be 
rebuked  ?  Are  they  any  others  than  the 
"  true  shepherds,"  the  pastors  of  the  Lord's 
flock,  by  whom  they  are  to  be  deposed  and 
treated  as  wolves  if  they  continue  obstinate  ? 
When  in  the  xviii.  ch.  it  is  said  of  Presbyters 
"  They  are  elders  (senioies)  and  as  it  were  sen- 1 


ntors  and  fathers  of  the  Church  governing  it 
with  wholesome  counsel,"  the  term  is  applied 
to  ministers  of  the  word  just  in  the  very  same 
way  that  the  term  Presbyter,  or  Elder  is  ap- 
plied to  ministers  of  the  word  in  our  Form  of 
Government,  ch.  iv.  "  Of  Bishops  and  Pas- 
tors." "The  pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  the 
church  both  for  dignity  and  usefulness.  The 
person  luho  Jills  this  office,  hath,  in  scripture, 
obtained  different  names  expressive  of  his  va- 
rious duties.  As  he  has  the  oversight  of  the 
flock  of  Christ,  he  is  termed  bishop,  as  he 
feeds  thenf  with  spiritual  food,  he  is  termed 
pastor,  as  he  serves  Christ  in  his  church  he 
is  termed  minister.  As  it  is  his  duty  to  be 
grave  and  prudent,  and  an  example  of  the 
flock,  and  to  govern  well  in  the  house  and 
kingdom  of  Christ,  he  is  termed  presbyter  or 
elder,"  &c.  "  Do  the  terms  bishop,  pastor, 
minister,  presbyter,  designate  the  same  per- 
son or  different  persons  .'  Compare  this  ex- 
tract with  the  following  passage  from  the  xviii. 
ch.  of  the  Helvetic  confession,  "  Licebit  ergo 
nunc  ecclesiarum  ministros  nuncupare  Epis- 
copos,  Presbyteros,  Pastores  atque  Doctores." 
"  We  may  therefore  call  the  mi^iisters  of  the 
churches  Bishops,  Presbyters,  Pastors  and 
Doctors,"  and  this  sentence  is  the  very  next 
one  in  order  after  those  in  which  these  several 
terms  are  defined,  and  among  which  is  the 
definition  o( presbyters  cited  by  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, viz.  "That  they  are  Elders  (seniores) 
and  as  it  were  senators  and  fathers  of  the 
church,  governing  it  with  wholesome  counsel." 
Is  more  evidence  needed,  that  in  giving  this 
definition  of  the  term  Presbyters,  the  design  is 
merely  to  define  one  of  thetei-ms  by  which  min- 
isters may  be  designated,  and  not  to  point  out 
the  different  officers  in  the  church  1  Take  the 
following  passage  from  Calvin,  "  Caeterum 
quod  Episcopos,  et  Presbyteros,  et  Pastores,  et 
Ministros  promiscue  vocavi  qui  ecclesias  re- 
gunt,  id  feci  ex  Scripturae  usu,  quae  ista  vo- 
cabula  confundit." 

Had  there  been  ruling  elders  in  all  the 
churches  of  Switzerland,  this  would  come  far 
short  of  being  proof  that  ruling  elders  were 
included  in  the  term  "  elders"  in  the  first  sen- 


48 


tcnce  cited  from  this  confession,  viz/'And  those 
who  are  chosen,  ouglit  to  be  ordained  by  the 
ciders  with  public  prayers  and  imposition  of 
hands."  It  would  still  be  an  open  question 
whether  in  this  connexion,  the  term  elders 
includes  onlj-  ministers,  or  both  ministers  and 
those  "  usually  styled  ruling  elders,"  for  if  the 
ordination  were  by  the  ministers  alone,  the 
rule  would  be  fully  complied  with,  inasmuch 
as  according  to  the  universal  consent  of  all 
Presbyterians,  ministers  are  cldcis.  But  as 
already  remarked,  no  other  elders  are  men- 
tioned in  this  confession  than  the  elders  who 
are  7ni7iisters,  and  the  conclusion,  therefore,  is  ! 
irresistible  that,  according  to  this  confession,  i 
in  the  ordination  of  a  minister  not  only  the 
making  of  the  ordaining  prayer,  but  also  the 
imposition  of  hands  appertained  to  ministers 
only.* 

"  It  would  be  easy,"  says  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
to  show  the  same  doctrine  from  other  confes- 
sions, for  example  those  of  the  Bohemian 
churches  of  1535,  and  of  1575,  and  various 
Professions  of  Polish  and  Lithuanian  church- 
es of  the  following  century."  When  he  shall 
undertake  to  show  how  easy  a  task  it  would 
be  to  prove  what  he  says,  it  may  become  ne- 
cessary to  show  that  he  understands  as  little 
about  these  as  he  does  about  those  already  ex- 
amined. By  assuming  the  very  point  in  de- 
bate, viz.,  that,  whenever  elders  are  spoken  of 

*  We  are  told  'indeed  that  in  the  ancient 
church  excommunication  was  practised,  and 
that  the  people  of  God  had  ecclesiastical  trials 
in  which  discipline  was  exercised  by  prudent 
and  pious  men.  These  doubtless  are  the  pro- 
totypes of  our  ruling  elders,  but  in  the  Helvetic 
Confession  they  are  not  elsewhere  alluded  to, 
and  in  this  place  they  are  spoken  of  merely  as 
"  prudent  and  pious  men,"  to  whom  was  en- 
trusted tlic  discipline  of  the  church,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  miiiist(!rs. 

"  Cumquc  omnino  operteat  esse  in  ccclesia 
disciplinam,  et  apud  vetercs  quondam  usitata  ; 
fuerit  Excommunicatio,  fucrint  que  judicia  ec- 
clesiastica  in  populo  iJei,  in  quibus  per  viros 
prudentes  ct  pios  cxerccbatur  haec  disciplina, 
ministrorum  quoque  fuerit,  ad  edificationcm, 
disciplinam  moderaii  banc,  pro  conditiono  tem- 
porum,  status  publici,  ac  necessitate." — Ch" 
xviii. 


in  connexion  with  the  ordination  of  ministori;, 
ruling  elders  are  included,  he  doubtless  can 
make  good  his  assertion.  But  this  preliminary 
step  he  will  find  to  be  no  easy  task.  Why  did 
not  Dr.  Breckinridge  introduce  into  his  speech 
the  testimony  of  ihcBclgic  Confession  to  which 
he  appealed  with  so  much  confidence  in  his 
''  Spirit  of  the  XIX  Century"  in  answer  to 
some  remarks  in  the  Princeton  Review  ?  Did 
he  discover  his  gross  blunder  before  it  was 
pointed  out  to  him  in  the  last  number  of  the 
same  Review  ?  and  wisely  include  this  testi- 
mony among  that  of  the  other  churches  he 
would  pass  over,  with  the  testimonies  of  the 
Bohemian  and  Polish  churches.  With  the 
Doctor's  consent,  I  will  give  him  some  evi- 
dence respecting  the  Church  of  Holland,  taken 
from  the  Rules  of  Church  Government  estab- 
lished in  the  National  Synod  held  in  Dor- 
drecht, in  the  years  1618  and  1619 — which» 
in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  ought  not  to  be  passed 
over.  "  A  lawful  call  to  persons  not  heretofore 
engaged  in  the  ministry  of  the  word  consists ; 
\.  Jn  a  free  choice,  2.  Jn  uii.  examinatioif 
3.  In  the  approbation,  &c.  4.  In  public  or- 
dination, in  the  presence  of  the  congregation, 
according  to  the  form  adopted  for  that  purpose, 
accompanied  with  suitable  engagements,  ex- 
hortations, prayers,  and  imposition  of  hands 
by  the  minister  xuho  presides  at  the  ordina- 
tion, and  such  other  ministers  as  may  be  pre- 
sent" 

Dr.  Breckinridge's  next  appeal  is  to  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland. 

It  is  on  all  hands  conceded  that  in  the  time 
of  Knox  and  of  the  first  Book  of  Discipline, 
ministers  were  not  ordained  with  imposition  of 
hands.  Nevertheless  a  candidate  was  admit- 
ted to  the  ministry  by  the  chief  minister  de- 
claring that  he  was  appointed  to  serve  the 
church  by  which  he  had  been  previously 
elected.  In  this  ceremony  of  admission,  the 
ruling  eklcr,  as  such,  took  no  part,  but  as  one 
of  the  people,  he  no  doubt  united  with  them 
in  expressing  in  a  public  manner  their  appro- 
bation of  the  person  chosen  to  be  their  min- 
ister, 

"  The   Second  Booh  of  Disciplined^  says 


4a 


Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  puts  the  whole  subject  of 
church  order  and  discipline  in  the  clearest 
light."  It  must  of  course  then  sustain  Dr. 
Breckinridge's  views ;  and  so  confident  is  he 
of  this,  that  he  concludes  his  observations  on 
this  book  in  these  words,  "  It  does  seem  to  me 
to  be  the  very  height  of  absurdity,  and  an  ab- 
solute contempt  of  common  sense,  for  any  one 
to  contend,  that  according  to  the  principles  and 
the  very  terms  of  this  instrument  ruling  elders 
are  not  permitted  to  impose  hands  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  ministers  of  the  word."  As  doubtless 
in  Dr.  B.'s  estimation,  I  have  long  ago  ar- 
rived at  this  very  height  of  absurdity,  he  will 
scarcely  expect  anything  else  of  me  than  to 
deny  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  "  Second 
Book  of  Discipline,"  ruling  elders  are  per- 
mitted to  impose  hands  in  ordination.  But 
not  only  do  I  deny  this,  but  I  will  go  one  step 
fu'-ther,  and  maintain  that  during  the  time 
that  this  book  was  the  law  of  the  Scotch 
Church,  ruling  elders  had  no  vote  in  deciding 
whether  a  candidate  was  qualified  on  the  score 
of  theological  attainments  to  be  a  minister  of 
the  word,  though  they  had  a  vote  on  the 
question  whether  or  not  he  should  be  or- 
dained. 

As  to  the  first  point,  it  depends,  as  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge justly  remarks,  on  the  meaning  of  the 
term  Eldership  in  the  following  passage: 
"  The  ceremonies  of  ordination  are  fasting, 
earnest  prayer,  and  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  elderMp."  There  are  four  sorts  of  as- 
semblies or  elderships  mentioned  in  this  Second 
Book  of  Discipline.  "  For  they  are  either  of 
particular  kirks  and  congregations  one  or 
more,  or  of  a  province,  or  of  a  whole  nation, 
or  of  diverse  nations  professing  one  Jesus ' 
Christ."  j 

Notwithstanding,  "the  Second  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline," according  to  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "  puts 
the  whole  subject  of  church  order  and  disci- 
pline in  the  clearest  light,"  Dr.  Breckinridge 
is  unable  to  say  to  which  of  the  different  elder- 
ships, treated  of  in  ch.  vii,  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion belongs.  «  There  is,"  he  says,  «  no  direct 
statement  in  the  instrument  as  to  ivhich  elder- 
ship it  especially  appertains  to  ordain  all  per- 


sons who  bear  ecclesiastical  functions ;  per- 
haps it  might  by  its  terms  appertain  to  every 
church  assembly  lawfully  called  and  constitu- 
ted." So  much  for  the  clearest  light.  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge next  remarks,  "  But  the  evident  burden 
of  the  whole  places  the  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  particular  eldership."  Very  good.  But 
what  is  a  particular  Eldership  1  It  is  the  first  of 
the  four  above  named,  viz.  an  Eldership  com- 
mon to  several  diuerent  kirks.  "When  we 
speak  of  the  Elder's  of  the  particular  con- 
gregations," says  the  Second  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, "we  mean  not  that  every  particular 
parish  kirk  can,  or  may  have  their  own 
particular  elderships,  specially  in  landward ; 
but  we  think  three,  four,  more  or  fewer 
particular  kirks,  may  have  one  eldership 
common  to  them  all,  to  judge  their  ecclesias- 
tical causes."  This  was  at  that  time,  their 
lowest  church  court,  consisting  of  the  ministers 
and  elders  of  several  associated  churches.* 
And  it  is  about  as  clear  as  anything  in  the 
book  that  this  Eldership  had  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation, and  that  the  several  Elderships  in 
actual  existence  at  that  period,  had  also  the 
power  to  ordain,  yet  it  is  probable  that  for  the 
most  part,  it  was  exercised  chiefly  by  the  par- 
ticular eldership.  Speaking  of  this  eldership, 
the  authors  of  this  book  say,  in  ch.  vii.  "  The 
power  of  election  of  them  who  bear  ecclesiasti- 
cal charges  pertains  to  this  kind  of  Assembly 
within  their  own  bounds,  being  well  erected 
and  constituted  of  many  pastors,  and  elders  of 
suflicicnt  ability."  From  a  comparison  of  the 
above  with  the  two  following  sentences  in  ch. 
iii.  it  is  evident  that  "  the  particular  elder- 
ship" had  the  right  to  impose  hands  in  ordi- 
nation. "  This  outward  and  ordinary  calling 
hath  two  parts,  election  and  ordination.  Elec- 
tion is  the  choosing  out  of  a  person  or  per- 
sons   ....    by  the  judgment  of  the  eWe;-- 


*  And  this  fact  is  sufllcient  to  account  for 
the  ground  taken  by  Caldcrwood,  in  the  As- 
sembly of  1617,  that  the  session  of  an  indivi- 
dual Church  was  only  a  commission,  with  a 
doIcRated  power,  from  a  Presbytery,  the  in- 
dividual churches  not  having  at  the  first  sepa- 
rate sessions.    See  Baillic's  Letters.  JXo.  175. 


^ 


ship.  The  ceremonies  oi ordination  are  fasting, 
earnest  prayer  and  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  eldership."  The  same  eldership  is  evi- 
dently meant  in  both  sentences. 

Now  since  the  imposition  of  hands  appertains 
to  the  particular  eldership,  constituted  of  many 
pastors  and  elders  of  suflicicnt  ability,  are  not 
the  elders  to  take  part  in  the  imposition  of 
hands  ?  I  answer  confidently,  No.  And  now 
or  the  proof. 

Among  the  powers  expressly  conferred  upon 
the  particular  eldership  is  the  "  power  to  ex- 
communicate the  obstinate"  and  it  is  express- 
ly said,  "  It  pertains  to  the  eldership  to  take 
heed,  that  ....  the  discipline  be  rightly 
maintained :"  see  ch.  vii.  in  which  these  pas- 
sages occur ;  and  compare  them  with  the  fol-  { 
lowing  in  ch.  iv.  "  It  appertains  to  the  minis- 
ter, after  lawful  proceeding  by  the  eldership,  to 
pronounce  the  sentence  of  binding  and  loosing 
upon  any  person,  according  unto  the  power  of 
the  keys  granted  unto  the  kirk."  "  And  gene- 
rally all  public  denunciations  that  are  to  be 
made  in  the  kirk  before  the  congregation  con- 
cerning ecclesiastical  afTairs  belong  to  the  office 
of  a  minister,  for  he  is  a  messenger  and  herald 
betwixt  God  and  his  people  in  all  these  affairs.' 

From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  accor- 
ding to  the  principles  of  the  "  Second  Book  of 
Discipline,"  it  appertains  to  the  entire  elder- 
ship to  decide  all  matters  within  the  compass 
of  its  jurisdiction,  but  when  the  decision  is 
made,  the  declaration  or  executioTi  of  the  de- 
cision belongs  to  the  office  of  a  minister,  and  it 
matters  not  whether  it  be  done  by  words  or  by 
signs,  and  this  too  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Second  Book  of  Discipline,  for  it  expressly 
teaches,  in  ch.  iv.  that  instruction  may  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  eye  as  well  as  to  the  ear,  and 
assigns  this  as  the  reason  why  the  adminis- 
tering of  the  sacraments  as  well  as  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  appertains  unto  the  pastors 
only.* 


*  "  Unto  the  pastors  appertain  the  teaching 
of  God's  word,"  &c. 

"  Unto  the  pastors  only  appertains  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  in  like  manner 
as  the  administration  of  the  word ;   for  both 


In  deciding  the  question  whether  a  man 
shall  be  ordained  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
the  whole  eldership  voted,  but  the  actual  im- 
position being  a  public  declaration  of  the  fact 
that  the  man  is  set  apart  to  the  office  of  the 
ministry  pertained  to  the  ministers  alone, 
just  as  in  the  cases  of  excommunication, 
and  in  the  milder  forms  of  discipline,  it  apper- 
tamcd  to  the  entire  eldership  to  decide  whether 
an  individual  should  be  cut  off  from  the 
church  or  otherwise  censured,  but  when  the 
decision  was  once  made,  it  was  the  oflice  of 
the  pastor  alone  to  pronounce  the  sentence, 
whatever  that  might  be.  And  whether  the 
rules  laid  down  in  the  Second  Bosk  of  Disci- 
pline gave  rise  to  the  practice  of  which  Steuart 
speaks  in  the  following  passage,  or  whether 
these  rules  merely  rendered  obligatory,  what 
previously  had  been  customary  and  optional* 
it  is  evident,  that  from  the  very  time  in  which 
imposition  of  hands  began  to  be  practised  in 
the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  it  was  prac- 
tised by  the  ministers  alone.  "  In  the  Assem- 
blies of  the  church  .  .  ruling  elders  have  right 
to  reason  and  vote  in  all  matters  coming  before 

them  ...  as  ministers  have Howbeit 

by  the  practice  of  the  church  the  execution  of 
some  decrees  doth  belong  to  pastors  only,  such 
as  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  pronouncing 
the  sentences  of  excommunication  and  absolu- 
tion, the  receiving  of  penitents,  the  intimation 
of  sentences  and  censures  about  ministers  and 
such  like."     See  Steuart  I.  vii.  9. 

This  explanation  of  the  words,  "imposi- 
tion of  the  hands  of  the  eldership,"  in  the  Second 
Book  of  Discipline,  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of 
an  anaolgous  form  of  expression  in  the  West- 
minister Form  of  Government,  in  which,  be- 


are  appointed  by  God,  as  means  to  teach  us, 
the  one  by  the  ear,  and  the  other  by  the  eyes 
and  other  senses,  that  by  both  knowledge  may 
be  transferred  to  the  mind." 

In  accordance  with  this  is  the  language  of 
the  authors  of  the  "  Jus  Divinum  Ministerii 
Evangelici,"  respecting  the  imposition  of  hands. 
"  We  use  it  not  as  an  operative  ceremony,  but 
as  a  moral  sign  to  declare  publicly  who  the 
party  is  that  is  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the 
Ministry."    ch.  xii. 


51 


yond  all  dispute,  ministers  only  are  meant,  i  he  would  not  consent  to  submit  to  any  mea- 
when  it  is  said  :  "  The  Presbytery .  .  shall  sol-  j  sure  that  would  call  into  question  the  va- 
emnly  set  him  apart  to  the  office  and  work  of  lidity   of  his   ministry.     As   a    confirmation 


the  ministry,  by  laying  their  hands  upon  him," 
&c.     Under  the    Westminster  Form  of  Gov- 


of  his  ministry,  and  not  as  a  new  ordination, 
he    consented    to   receive,    and    did   receive 


ernment,  the  Presbytery  or  eldership  consisted   imposition  of   hands.     The  persons  appoint- 


ofboth  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  as  was 
the  case  under  the  second  Book  of  Discipline, 
and  yet  in  imposing  hands,  the  ministers  alone 
are  spoken  of  as  the  Presbytery.  Why  shall 
we,  then,  not  only  without  evidence,  but  con- 
trary to  evidence,  maintain,  that  by  the  term 
"  eldership,"  in  the  phrase  above  cited,  we  are 
to  understand  the  entire  body  composed  of 
both  ministers  and  elders?  The  explanation 
which  I  have  given  of  the  clause  in  dispute 
is  farther  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  there 
is  no  evidence  that  while  the  econd  Book  of 
Discipline  was  the  law  of  the  Scottish  Church, 
Ruling  Elders  ever  imposed  hands,  in  ordina- 
tions. While  the  current  of  testimony  as  to  the 
practice  of  the  church,  and  as  to  the  construc- 
tion given  to  the  rules  respecting  ordination, 
is  against  the  position  taken  by  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge. 

For  eleven  years  before  he  received  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  Mr.  Robert  Bruce,  a  pupil  and 
intimate  friend  of  Melville,  was  one  of  the  pas- 
tors of  the  Church  in  Edinburgh,  and  that  too 


ed  to  attend  upon  this  business,  were- 
Robert  Pont,  James  Nicholson  and  Thomas 
Buchanan,  all  ministers.  It  was  probably 
about  this  time  that  the  several  churches  be- 
gan to  have  their  respective  sessions.  Years 
before  this,  and  while  the  Second  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline,called  also  the  Book  of  Policy ,was  in  fra- 
ming, according  to  Calderwood,  or  just  after  it 
was  ratified,  according  to  James  Melville,  Pat- 
rick Adamson,  archbishop  of  St.  Andrews,  to 
satisfy  Andrew  Melville  and  his  friends  that  he 
was  fully  with  them,  signed  ceitain  proposi- 
tions, from  which  I  extract  the  following  pas- 
sage: "  The  ordaining  and  appointing  of  pas- 
tors, which^is  also  called  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
appertaineth  not  to  one  bishop  only,  so  being 
lawful  election  pass  before,  but  to  those  who 
are  of  that  same  Province  or  Presbytery,  and 
with  the  like  jurisdiction  and  authority  minis- 
ter at  their  kirks." 

In  no  one  of  the  standards  of  the  Scottish 
Church,  and  by  none  of  the  Presbyterians  of 
Scotland,  were  ruling  elders  ever  called  bishops. 


during  the  veiy  time  when  the  Second  Book  \  Adamson,   therefore,  in  the  above   sentence. 


of  Discipline  was  the  law  of  the  church,  and 
was  held  in  the  highest  repute.  The  ceremo- 
ny of  imposing  hands  was  yet  held  to  be  a 
matter  of  indifference,  and  being  so  regarded  it 
was  probably   often  omitted  in  the  admission 


speaks  of  the  ministers  of  the  Presbytery  as 
those  to  whom  appertained  the  imposition  of 
hands.  Had  it  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Sec- 
ond Book  of  Discipline,  that  it  was  the  right 
and  the  duty  of  ruling  elders  to  impose  hands, 


of  Pastors,  because  the  Romanists  and  Epis-  i  and  that  to  limit  imposition  of  hands  to  min- 
copalians  held  it  to  be  a  rite  essential  to  ordi-   isters  tended  to  degrade  the  office  of  ruling  el- 


nation,  and  to  be  practised  by  prelates  alone. 
But  be  this  as  it  may,  Bruce  became  a  Pastor, 
without  receiving  the  imposition  of  hands, 
and  when  he  was  required,  by  the  King  and 
the  Commissioners  of  the  General  Assembly, 
to  receive  it,  under  penalty  of  being  dismissed 
from  his  post,  he  made  no  objection  on  the 
ground  that  none  but  ministers  were  appoint- 
ed to  receive  him,  and  impose  hands,  but  sim- 
ply on  the  ground  that  he  was  already  a  pas- 1 


der,  and  was  the  oflfspring  of  hierarchical  senti- 
ments, as  is  maintained  by  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
Adamson  sutely  would  never  have  expected 
Melville  and  the  other  friends  of  the  Second 
Book  of  Discipline  to  be  satisfied  with  any 
such  declaration  as  the  one  above  cited. 

In   a  letter  addressed  to  "  the  Pastors  of  the 
Kirk  of  Geneva  and  Tigurie,"  (Zurich)  An- 
drew Melville  has  these  and  like  words,  "  . 
.     .     concerning  matters  of  discipline,  seeing 


tor   without  the  impositioa  of   hands,   and  !  whatsoever  we  have  in  that  matter,  we  willing- 


52 


ly  and  plainly  confess  to  have  received  it  of  you; 
and  that  we  altogether  agree  with  you  in  all 
points,  so  marvellously  do  our  minds  and  wills 
by  the  virtue  of  God's  Spirit,  consent  in  an  liar- 
naony."  See  James  Melville's  Tiography,  p. 
157.  Who  has  any  doubt  as  to  the  course 
pursued  at  Geneva  in  the  ordination  of  minis- 
ters 1  What  then  are  we  to  infer  from  this 
declaration  of  Melville  ?  Shall  we  believe  that 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  contrary  to  the  rule 
and  practice  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  and  of 
Zurich,  and  in  short,  of  all  the  reformed 
churches,  ruling  elders  imposed  hands  in  the 
ordination  of  ministers,  or  that  the  Second 
Book  of  Discipline,  in  giving  merely  the  heads 
of  policy,  designed  to  teach  any  such  doctrine. 

In  his  controversy  with  Tilenus,  Calder- 
wood  maintains  that  there  is  no  impropriety  in 
calling  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  though  all  the 
members  of  Presbytery  may  not  have  the  right 
to  impose  hands,"  and  he  admits  the  fact 
charged  by  Tilcnus,  that  ruling  elders  did  not 
take  part  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  and 
which  was  urged  by  Tilenus  as  an  acknow- 
ledgment that  ruling  elders  should  not  be 
members  of  Presbytery,  and  he  further  admits 
that  "  the  imposition  of  hands  which  is  joined 
with  prayer  and  the  benediction  is  to  be  con- 
fined to  the  pastor  or  teaching  elder."  He  held 
indeed,  that  "  as  a  sign  of  consent  and  assis- 
tance. Ruling  Elders  could  impose  hands,"  as 
is  done  by  the  Pr€sb3;tcrs  in  prclatical  ordina- 
tions, and  not  only  so,  but  intimates  very  clear- 
ly, that  in  his  opinion,  private  members  of  the 
church  might  do  the  same.  See  his  Altare 
Damascenum,  pp.  G89--G90.  Whether  his 
opinions  be  well  or  ill-founded  in  regard  to 
ihese  points,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  little  mo- 
ment whether  they  be  or  not,  one  thing  is 
certain  from  his  testimony,  viz.,  that  in  the 
time  of  McWille,  ruling  elders  in  Scotland  did 
not  impose  hands  in  the  ordination  of  min- 
isters. And  would  this  have  been  the  case  if 
their  statute  book  taught  that  imposition  of 
hands  belonged  equally  to  ministers  and  ru- 
ling eldeis? 

To  the  testimony  t'lrcady  adduced   to  the 


proper  construction  of  the  Second  Book  of 
Disci[)Iiiie  respecting  the  imposition  of  hands 
in  ordination,  I  will  add  the  Ibllowing  passa- 
ges from  Henderson,  Rutherford,  and  Guthiie, 
given  in  the  appendix  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Miller's 
Sermon  on  "  The  Warrant,  Nature,  and  Du- 
ties of  the  oflice  of  ruling  elder."  Hender- 
son's treatise  was  published  in  1641,  Ruther- 
ford's in  1642  and  Guthrie's  about  1650.  Speak- 
ing of  the  practice  observed  at  the  ordination  of 
ministers,  Henderson  says,  "The  minister  com- 
eth  from  the  pulpit,  and  with  as  many  of  the 
ministers  present  as  may  conveniently  come 
near,  lay  their  hands  upon  his  head,  and  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  do  appoint  him  to  be  pastor  of 
that  people."  In  his  treatise,  entitled  "  A 
Peaceable  Pica  for  Paul's  Presbytery  in  Scot- 
land," Rutherford  says,  "  Everywhere,  in  the 
word,  where  pastors  and  elders  are  created,  they 
are  ordained  by  Pastors." — p.  27.  "  Ordination 
of  pastors  is  never  given  to  people,  or  believers, 
or  to  Ruling  Elders,  but  still  to  pastors,  as  is 
clear  from  I  Tim.  v.  22,  Titus  i.  5,  Acts  vi.  6, 
Actsxiii.3,2Tim.  i.  6,  1  Tim.iv.  14."— p  190. 
In  his  treatise  of  Elders  and  Deacons,  Guth- 
rie says,  "  Ilowbeit  the  execution  of  some  de- 
crees of  the  Church  AsscmbUes,  such  as  the 
imposition  of  hands — the  pronouncing  the 
sentence  of  excommunication — the  receiving 
penitents — the  intimation  of  the  deposition  of 
ministers,  and  such  like,  do  belong  to  minis- 
ters alone"  The  accomplished  antiquary 
to  whom  Dr.  Miller  acknowledges  himself  in- 
debted for  the  communication  from  which  the 
above  extracts  have  been  made,  says  in  his 
letter  to  Dr.  M. :  "  Guthrie  follows  through- 
out the  rules  laid  down  in  the  First  and  Se- 
cond Books  of  Discipline."  IVow  is  it  to  be 
believed  that  these  men  would  have  written 
thus,  if  it  had  been  the  law  or  practice  of  the 
Church  under  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline  for 
Ruling  Elders  to  unite  with  ministers  in  im" 
posing  hands .''  Is  it  credible  that  Henderson 
should  have  done  so,  who  was  moderator  of 
the  Assembly  of  1638,  which  one  or  two  years 
before  he  wrote  his  treatise,  entitled  "The  Gov- 
ernment and  Order  of  the  Church  of  Scotland," 
passed  an   act   respecting  the   Assemblies  of 


53 


the  Church,  including  Kirk  Sessions,  Provin- 
cial and  National  Assemblies,  from  which  I 
extract  the  following  passage  :  "  The  Assem- 
bly findeth  it  necessary  to  restore,  and  by  these 
presents  restoreth  all  these  Assemblies  unto 
Ihcir  integrity  in  numbers,  privileges,  powers 
and  jurisdictions,  as  they  were  constituted  by 
the  aforesaid  Book  of  Policy." 

Would  it  not  have  been  a   most  singular 
restoring  of  them  to  their  integrity  by   abridg- 
ing the  rights  of  one  of  the  classes  of  which 
these  Assemblies  were  composed  ?     If  then,  a 
comparison  of  the  dilferent  rules  laid  down  in 
the  Second  Book  of  Discipline,   leads  to  the 
conclusion  that,  according  to  the  true  meaning 
and  intent  of  the  clause,  "  imposition   of  the  i 
hands  of  the  eldership,"  ministers  alone  were  ' 
to  take  part  in  this  c2remony  ;  and  if  this  con- 
clusion is  fortified,  by  the   constant  and  uni- 
form practice  under   the  rules  laid   down  for  ! 
the  ordination  of  ministers  in  said  Book,  as  ev- 
idenced by  the   authorities  above  cited,  and  if 
too,  this  practice  corresponds  with   the   uni- 
form practice  of  the  Kirk  of  Geneva,   after  | 
which,  Melville  says,   that  of  Scotland  was 
modelled,  and  with  which  it  perfectly   corres- 
ponded, %vhat  are  we  to  think  of  the  judgment 
of  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  this  matter,  who  with- 
out producing  one  single  authority,  or  citing 
a  single  instance  to  sustain  his  construction 
of  the  rule,  ventures  to  say,  « it  does  seem  to 
me  to  be  the  very  height  of  absurdity  and  an 
absolute  contempt  of  common  sense,  for  any 
one  to  contend  that  according  to  the  princi- 
ples and  very  terms  of  this  rule,  Ruling  Elders 
are  not  permitted  to  impose  hands  in  the  ordi 
nation  of  ministers  of  the  word."* 


I      Dr.   Breckiniidge's  next  appeal  is  to  the 
I  Westminster  Directory  for  Ordination,  in  re- 
,  gard  to  which  I  should  deem  it  unnecessary  to 
;  say  a  single  word  in  this   connexion,  having 
already  shown  fully  the  doctrine  of  this  work, 
had  it  not  been  for  Dr.  Breckinridge's  most 
unwarrantable  assumption  that  the  whole  Di- 
j  rectory  was  devised  for  an    unsettled   and  ex- 
traordinary state  of  the  Church,  and  that  it 
"  contemplates  the  extraordinary  state  of  af- 
fairs actually  existing."     How    Dr.   Breckin- 
]  ridge  could  make  such  a  statement  as  this,  I 
cannot  venture  to  form  a  conjecture  ;  having 
before  his  eyes  the  clearest  evidence  to  the 
I  contrary,  in  a  sentence  immediately  preceding 
one  which  he  quotes.     The  sentence  to  which 
I  refer  is  the  following  and  it  occurs  near  the 
close  of  the  Directory.     "  Thus  far  of  ordina- 
ry rule,  and  the   course  of  ordination,   in  the 
ordinary  way  ;  that  which  concerns  the  extra- 
ordinary way  requisite  to  be  now  practised, 
foUoweth;"    and    then   follows   a    sentence. 


*Vl  hen  James  was  laboring  to  subject  the 
Church  wholly  to  the  Civil  Power,  he  caused 
to  be  drawn  up  certam  questions  to  be  resolved 
at  the  Convention  of  the  Estates  and  General 
Assembly,  appointed  to  be  held  at  Penh  the 
last  of  February,  1596.  To  these  questions 
answers  were  proposed  by  sundry  ministers 
ot  the  Synod  of  Fife,  and  strenuous  defenders 
of  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline.  'J'hc  ques- 
tions and  answers  are  given  in  James  Mel- 
ville s  Diary,  and  the  Synod  is  much  commend- 
ed by  him  for   their  fidelity  in  this  matter. 


,  From  these  questions  and  answers  I  select 
the  following,  and  they  will  show  that  accord- 
.  ing  to  the  construction  then  given  by  these 
I  most  strenuous  advocates  of  the  Second  Book 
jOf  Discipline,  Ruling  Elders  possessed  less 
I  power  in  Presbytery  than  under  our  own  sys- 
j  tem  of  Church  Government. 
I  '-Qucsdon  1.  Is  not  the  consent  of  most 
{  part  of  the  flock,  and  also  of  the  Patron,  ne- 
cessary in  the  election  of  the  Pastors  ] 

"Answer.  The  election  of  Pastors  should 
be  made  by  them  who  are  Pastors  and  Doc- 
tors lawfully  called,  and  who  can  try  the  gifts 
necessarily  belonging  to  Pastors  by' the  Word 
of  (I'od,  and  to  such  as  are  so  chosen,  the  flock 
and  the  Pastors  should  give  their  consent  and 
protection." 

"Question  17th.  Should  not  the  Elders  and 
Deacons  of  each  particular  session  have  vote 
!  m  the  Presbyteries,  or  the  Pastors  only  i 
I      "Answer.     Elders  also  having  commission 
trom   their  sessions   in    matters  of  manners 
hke  as  also  Deacons  in  the  Poor's  affairs,  and 
I  patrimony  of  the  Kirk." 
I      "Question  21.  Should  all  who  have  vote  in 
the   Presbyteries,  and   also  in  the   particular 
sessions,  have  vote  in  Synodical  Assembhes  >" 
"Answer.  The  Pastors  and   Doctors,  and 
such  as  have  commission  from  particular  ses- 
sions of  Congregations  have  vote,  except  in 
matters  of  Doctrine,  wherein  only  thev  that 
labour  in  the  Word  may  vote  and  judV" 


64 


which  he  has  quoted,  beginning  with  these!  questions,  1.  That  the  power  to  ordain  does 
words,  "  In  these  present  exigencies,"  &c.  i  not  belong  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  2.  That  it 
And  were  there  no  such  sentence  in  the  Di-  does  belong  to  a  presbytery.  3.  That  it  "  be- 
rectory,  as  the  one  cited  above,  the  very  de- 1  longs  to  ministers  in  general."  Then  after  a 
sign  in  drawing  up  a  system  of  Church  Gov-  record  of  the  questions  proposed  to  the  candi- 
ernment  including  a  Directory  for  Ordination,  dates,  arc  the  following  words  :  "  Here  Mr. 
\iz.  to  secure  a  uniformity  in  this  whole  mat-  Patillo  and  Mr.  Richardson  kneeled  down,  and 
ter,  in  the  united  kingdoms  of  England  and  [  the  Presbytery  laid  their  hands  upon  them,  and 
Scotland,  would  be  conclusive  as  to  the  fact  i  he  that  presided  offered  up  a  solemn  prayer 
that  the  Directory  was  designed  for  a  perma-  over  them  agreeably  to  the  materials  recom- 
nent  state  of  things.  I  need  scarcely  say  that !  mended  in  the  Westminster  Directory  on  this 
the  testimony  of  this  Directory  is  directly  op- 1  head."  ' 

posed  to  his  views.  I      "  And  as  a  token  of  our   receiving  you  into 

With  respect  to  the  Westminster  Directory,  he  i  ministerial  communion  as  members  of  this  pres- 
has  some  remarks,  the  apparent  design  of  which  j  bytery,  we  give  you  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
is  to  produce  the  impression  that  the  forms  di"  hip."  Then  follow  these  words  ;  "  Here  each 
,ected  by  it  to  be  observed  in  the  ordination  of  member  of  the  Presbytery  gave  Messrs.  Patillo 
a  candidate  to  the  ministry,  were  not  observed  ]  and  Richardson  his  right  hand }"  What  Pres- 
by  the  Church  of  Scotland  ;  and  as  if  it  really  bytery  !  "  a  collective  body  of  ministers  of  the 
furnished  any  countenance  to  these  remarks,  he   same  rank  and  order,"  is  President  Davies's 


refers  to  the  Act  passed  by  the  Assembly  of 
1649,  which  merely  directs  %vhat  measures  are 
to  be  pursued  in  the  election  of  a  Pastor,  and 
says  not  one  word  respecting  the  mode  of  in- 


own  definition  of  the  term  Presbytery.  And 
in  the  sermon  referred  to  he  tells  us,  "  To 
the  office  of  a  gospel  minister  then,  it  belongs 
to  preach  the  word ;    to  administer  the  sacra- 


vesting  him  with  the  pastoral  office.     The  very  j  ments  ;  to  concur  in  the  ordination  of  persons 

duly  qualified  to  this  oflkc,  pnd  to  rule  the 
church  of  God."  Do  preaching  and  the  admi- 
nistration of  the  sacraments  pertain  to  the  office 
of  the  Ruling  Elder  .>  If  not,  then  Ruling 
Elders  do  not  belong  to  the  "  coUectve  body  of 
ministers"  of  which  President  Davies  speaks- 
If  then  thirty  years  before  the  adoption  of  our 
Constitution,  ministers  weie  spoken  of  as  the 


title  of  the  Act  is  "  Directory  for  the  Election 
of  Ministers." 

Dr.  Breckinridge  concludes  his  appeal  to 
the  testimonies  of  the  different  Presbyterian 
Churches  by  a  reference  to  that  of  our  own- 
As  I  have  already  said  so  much  on  this  branch  of 
the  subject,  I  will  detain  the  reader  but  a  mo- 
ment longer  than  may  be  sufficient  for  him  to 


peruse  the  following  extracts  from  an  account  [  Presbytery  in  the  ceremonies  of  ordination, 
given  by  the  late  Rev.  Samuel  Davies,  of  the  and  each  member  meant  only  each  minister, 
ceremonies   observed  at  the   ordination  of  the    have  we  not  here  a  strong  confirmation  of  the 


Rev.  Messrs.  Patillo  and  Richardson  in  Cum- 
berland Co.,  Virginia,  July  13th,  1758,     and 


ground  I  have  taken  in  these  letters,  that  in  ch. 
XV.  14  of  our  present  Directory  for  ordination, 


from  a  sermon  preached  by  President  Davies  viz,  that  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
at  Hanover,  Virginia,  June  the  9th,  1557,  all  Presbytery"  means  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
the  ordination  of  the  Rev.  John  Martin.  of  the  ministers,  and  that  the  phrase  "  all  the 

"  But  here  a  question  lies  in  our  way  which  members"  means  all  the  ministers,  just  as  in 
has  been  much  agitated  in  the  world,  to  whom  the  passage  cited  from  the  form  given  by 
does  the  power  of  ordination  belong  ?  To  a  j  President  Davies  "  each  member"  meant  each 
Presbytery,  that  is,  to  a  collective  body  of ;  minister.  Shall  we  then  to  please  Dr.  Breck- 
rainisters  of  the  same  rank  and  order  1  or  to  a  inridge  cease  to  follow  the  practice  of  the  fathers 
Bishop,  that  is  to  a  minister  of  superior  order  of  our  own  Church,  and  the  example  of  all  the 
to  the  rest  of  the  clergy  >"     He  answers  these   different  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 


65 


in  our  own  and  other  lands  ?  How  long  shall  we 
continue  to  enjoy  quiet,  and  our  church  be  left 
at  liberty  to  devote  all  her  energies  to  the 
direct  advancement  of  the  interests  of  religion, 
if  she  yield  to  his  present  demands  ?  Will 
his  agitations  cease  if  we  now  give  up  ?  Of 
this  we  can  have  but  little  hope,  for  he  has 
told  us,  that  all  churches  require  frequent  refor- 
mations. How  many  more  we  are  to  have 
yet,  if  Dr.  Breckinridge  is  to  have  his  way,  is 
of  course  a  matter  unknown  to  any  mortal 
mind. 


I  have  now  brought  to  a  close  the  strictures 
which  I  proposed  to  make  upon  the  arguments 
and  statements  of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  as  presented 
in  his  two  speeches  before  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia. As  I  believed  the  speeches  to  be  of  a 
mischievous  tendency  to  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  and  the  spirit  pervading  them  to  be 
anything  but  what  it  should  be,  I  have  not 
hesitated  to  expose  as  fully  as  I  could  the  un- 
sound reasonings  and  the  inaccurate  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Breckinridge.  Occasionally,  too, 
I  have  animadverted  upon  some  of  the  more 
exceptionable  language  employed  by  him  when 
speaking  of  those  opposed  to  his  views.  Dr. 
Breckinridge  has  probably  yet  to  learn, 
that  positive  assertion,  great  pretensions  to 
minute  and  extensive  research,  and  a  contemp- 
tuous style  in  speaking  of  those  who  venture 
to  call  into  question  his  opinions  or  his 
schemes,  are  not  the  best  weapons  with 
which  to  assail  an  adversary,  or  to  defend  him- 
self. Without  the  least  call  for  it,  he  charged 
a  majority  of  the  ministers  in  the  last  Assem- 
bly with  being  prejudiced  against  the  rights  of 
the  Elders,  and  a  majority  of  the  Elders  with 
being  blind  as  to  their  own  rights  and  privileg- 
es.   He  also  charged  the  same  Assembly  with 


countenancing  views  which  have  a  tendency 
to  subvert  the  libeniea  of  the  Church  and  to 
prepare  the  way  for  a  hierarchy  ;  and  he  has 
warned  the  coming  Assembly,  that  if  they  do 
not  adopt  his  views  and  condemn  those  of  the 
last,  it  will  be  owing  to  the  circumstance  that 
"  God  is  angry  with  us  for  our  sins."  "  Mis- . 
erable  sophistry,"  "  supremely  absurd,"  "stark 
nonsense,"  "  utter  folly,"  "idle  professions  of 
respect,"  "open  deserters  of  their  covenanted 
calling,"  and  such  like,  are  the  phrases  which 
he  has  applied  to  the  persons  and  to  the  real 
or  supposed  sentiments  of  some  of  his  oppo- 
nents. Had  his  speeches  been  printed  as  soon  as 
they  were  delivered,  considerable  allowance 
might  be  made  on  the  score  of  temporary  ex- 
citement occasioned  by  the  circumstance  that 
he  was  aware  that  a  large  majority  of  those  to 
whom  his  remarks  were  addressed  were  oppos- 
ed to  his  views.  But  they  were,  delivered,  one  on 
the  20th,  and  the  other  on  the  23d  of  October 
last,  and  were  not  published,  the  first  until  the 
9th  of  December,  and  the  second  until  the  30th 
of  December  and  6th  of  January. 

Dr.  Breckinridge,  it  seems  to  me,  speaks 
and  writes  of  others,  as  if  he  regarded  him- 
self at  liberty  to  say  of  them  just  what  he 
pleases  and  just  in  what  way  he  pleases,  per- 
fectly regardless  of  their  feelings  or  those  of 
their  friends,  and  yet  he  expects  nothing 
but  the  utmost  deference  to  be  paid  to  his  per- 
son and  opinions.  If  this  gentleman  does  not 
always  receive  measure  for  measure  for  the  un- 
bridled license  in  which  he  sometimes  induc- 
es, he  ought  to  know  that  it  arises  in  some 
cases  at  least,  much  more  from  the  respect 
which  those  assailed  have  for  themselves  and  for 
the  ordinary  courtesies  of  life,  and  above  all, 
for  the  proprieties  of  Christian  intercourse 
than  from  any  deference  to  his  person  or  opin- 
ions, or  from  any  fear  of  his  abuse. 


INDEX. 


No.  I. — Kcmarks  on  the  Protest  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  and  others,  and  on  his  complaint  or  ap- 
peal to  the  next  Genera]  Asfcnildy. 

No.  II. — Remarks  ])refatory  to  an  cxanimation  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  argument  respecting  the 
Quotum  Question. 

No.  III. — 'I'he  fallacy  of  Dr.  Brockinridae's  argument  founded  upon  the  fact  that  a  Presbytery 
is  composed  of  two  distinct  classes  of  church  oHicers.  Error  of  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
respecting  the  six  Ciencral  Assemblies,  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  condemned  and  an- 
nulled by  the  General  Assembly  of  1638. 

No.  IV. — Error  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  regard  to  the  statemei;ts  of  Steuart  of  Pardovan,  con- 
cerning the  Assemblies,  Synods,  Presbyteries,  and  Kirk  Sessions  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  of  their  committees.  Error  also  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  relation  to  the 
Commission  appointed  to  meet  and  confer  with  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines. 

No.  V. — The  main  position  assumed  by  Dr.  Breckinridge  at  variance  with  the  provisions  of 
our  constitution,  with  respect  to  the  quorums  of  the  General  Assembly  and  of  a 
Church  Session. 

No.  VI. — ."^n  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  rule  relating  to  a  quorum  of  Presbytery.  An 
examination  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  reasons  for  asserting  that  the  terms  of  the  rule  re- 
quire one  or  more  ciders  at  every  meeting  of  Presbytery. 

No.  VII. — Certain  considerations  which  would  have  rendered  it  inexpedient  to  make  the  pre- 
sence of  Ruling  Elders  essential  to  a  quorum  of  Presbytery,  at  the  time  the  constitu- 
tion was  adopted.  .?  Postscript,  giving  the  very  words  of  the  Acts,  passed  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1638,  annulling  the  six  preceding  Assemblies,  so  far  as  these 
acts  refer  to  Ruling  Elders. 

No.  VIII. — Error  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  assigning  the  reasons  for  annuliingy  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  for  the  exscinding  of  four  Synods  by  our  General  Assembly  of  18.37. 
These  acts  have  no  bearing  upon  the  decision  of  the  quorum  question. 

No.  IX. — Answer  to  two  ol'jcctions  to  the  argument,  in  favour  of  the  decision  of  the  Assembly 
of  1843,  derived  from  the  uniform  practice  of  our  oldest  Presbyteries. 

No.  X. — A  sunmiary  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  al- 
so a  summary  of  the  jirincipal  objections  to  that  decision. 

No.  XI. — An  examination  of  the  first  reason  assigned  by  Dr.  Breckinridge  in  favour  of  set- 
ting aside  the  decision  of  the  last  Assembly  respecting  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the 
ordination  of  ministers,  viz  :  That  by  the  Constitution  the  power  to  ordain  ministers 
of  the  word  is  lodged  in  the  Presbytery,  and  that  the  Presl  ytery  consists  of  minis- 
ters and  Ruling  Elders.  This  reason  is  shown  to  be  of  no  force,  by  an  examination 
of  the  language  of  our  own  Form  of  Government,  and  by  a  comparison  of  this  lan- 
guage with  similar  expressions  in  the  Westminster  Form  of  Government  and  ii» 
Pardovan's  collections.  Import  of  the  terms,  Presbytery,  ministers,  and  members,  as 
used  in  the  directory  for  ordination. 

No.  XII. — An  examination  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  position  that  the  power  to  impose  hands  is  a 
joint  Tpower ,  In  what  sense  this  is  true,  and  in  its  true  sense  shown  to  constitute 
no  objection  to  the  Assembly's  decision.  This  view  confirmed  by  quotations  from 
the  Westminster  Form  of  Government — the  Jus  Divinum  Ministerii  Evangelici,  the 
Jus  Divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiastici.  The  source  of  ministerial  power.  Ruling  El- 
ders properly  the  representatives  of  the  people.  In  the  exercise  of  their  joint  power, 
the  ministers  and  ruling  elders  have  equal  right  to  deliberate  and  to  vote,  but  in  other 
respects  there  is  not  a  perfect  equality.  This  view  of  the  subject  is  the  only  one  which 
gives  a  consistent  construction  to  our  constitution.     Ordination  of  Ruling  Elders. 

No.  XIII. — Remarks  of  Dr.  Breckinridge  on  the  texts  of  scripture  cited  in  our  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, chap.  X.,  chap,  xi.,  chap,  xv.,  shewn  to  be  erroneous.  The  uniform  practice 
in  our  own  Church  until  within  a  few  years. — Letter  on  this  subject  from  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Green.  The  discontinuance  of  ordinations  by  committees  no  evidence  that  it  was 
the  design  of  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  to  allow  Ruling  Elders  to  lake  jiart  in  the 
imposition  of  hands.  The  testimony  furnished  by  the  Confessions,  Directories  and 
Practice  of  other  (Churches.  French  Churcli,  Helvetic  Church  and  Helvetic  Con- 
fession ;  the  Dutch  Church,  and  Directory  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Bohemian  and  Po- 
lish Churches.  'J'he  Kirk  of  Scotland  and  the  First  and  Second  Books  of  Discipline. 
Calderwood — .Andrew  Melville — Herrderson — Rutlierford — Guthrie.  Westminster 
Form  of  Government.     'l\:stimony  of  President  Davies.    Conclusion. 


i 


'^ATE  DUF=" 


\ 


^w 

w^ 

^ ' 

y^^; 


^y^rJ?>«:y^: 


tixVS3K 


alitliStilB-* '  '"V 


